G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC., ETC.
v.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., ETC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
G4S Security Solutions, Inc. petitioned for a writ of certiorari to compel discovery from Publix Supermarkets, Inc. The court partially granted the petition with respect to discovery request number eight, finding that the trial court had allowed identical discovery to the plaintiff but prohibited it to G4S, creating an essential and irreparable harm situation.
The court partially granted the petition for writ of certiorari with respect to discovery request number eight because the inconsistent treatment of discovery requests was a departure from the essential requirements of law. The requested discovery was essential to G4S's indemnity claim, and the court could not determine after judgment how the discovery would have affected the outcome without having access to it.
[1] A trial court commits a departure from the essential requirements of law warranting certiorari review when it denies a party essential discovery that was previously order…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“discovery request number eight because it is undisputed that the trial court allowed the exact same discovery to the Plaintiff in this case that it is now prohibiting G4S from obtaining”
The court's basis for granting the writ with respect to the specific discovery request
G4S and Publix have cross-claims for indemnification in an underlying case. The trial court previously ordered Publix to produce certain discovery to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of G4S Security Solutions, Inc.’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Publix Supermarkets, Inc.’s Response, we partially grant the Petition with respect to discovery request number eight because it is undisputed that the trial court allowed the exact same discovery to the Plaintiff in this case that it is now prohibiting G4S from obtaining. The requested discovery is essential to Petitioner’s claim for indemnity, and this Court would be unable to determine, after judgment, how the requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the case.1 Based solely on the unique procedural and factual situation presented herein, we find a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. See DNJS Holdings, LLC v. Pet Doctors Operating LLC, 224 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). (granting certiorari where the discovery was essential to petitioner’s cause of action, and the court could not determine after judgment how the requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings); PDR Grayson Dental Lab, LLC v. Progressive Dental Reconstruction, Inc., 203 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that petitioner would be irreparably 1 We note that, earlier in the underlying case, after the trial court ordered Publix to produce this discovery to the Plaintiff, they settled. Plaintiff’s claims remain pending against GS4. GS4 and Publix also have crossclaims against each other for indemnification.
harmed by not obtaining the requested discovery because it was necessary to establish an essential element of its cause of action, and the court could not determine after judgment how the requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings).
We dismiss the Petition with respect to the remaining requests.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- PDR Grayson Dental LAB, LLC v. Progressive Dental Reconstr., Inc., 203 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- DNJS Holdings, LLC v. PET Doctors Operating LLC, 224 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)