DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JORDAN MARSH COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Dade County appealed a trial court order sustaining Jordan Marsh Company's objections to interrogatories in a property tax assessment dispute. The court affirmed, finding that Dade County's reuse of identical standard-form interrogatories that had already been struck in a prior case between the same parties constituted an abuse of discovery procedures.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the objections to the interrogatories. The reuse of identical interrogatories previously rejected, particularly in mass-produced form without regard to the specific issues and property involved, constituted a flagrant abuse of discovery procedures.
“The plaintiff further objects to each and all of said interrogatories on the ground that they are mass-produced standard interrogatories filed in identical form in virtually all pending tax assessments suits, without regard to the issues, subject matter, and particular classification of property involved, which practice has been condemned by the Courts.”
Establishes the core objection that standard-form interrogatories filed without regard to specific case issues constitute abusive discovery practice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade County filed forty-three identical 'standard form' interrogatories in a tax assessment suit against Jordan Marsh Company, the same interrogatorie…
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.
This interlocutory appeal is by the defendant, Dade County, Florida, and is from an order of the trial court which sustained the “objections to interrogatories” filed by the plaintiff, Jordan Marsh Company.
The county filed in this case the identical set of forty-three “standard form” interrogatories which it had used in Dade County v. Jordan Marsh Company, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So.2d 473. There, we affirmed the order of another judge which struck interrogatories exactly the same as the instant set. That case involved the same parties, the same interrogatories, and the same legal issues. It involved a different personal property tax assessment.
The' order herein appealed provided “that the objections to these interrogatories should be sustained upon the grounds set forth in the final paragraph” of the plaintiff’s motion. The grounds in plaintiff’s last paragraph were:
“The plaintiff further objects to each and all of said interrogatories on the ground that they are mass-produced standard interrogatories filed in identical form in virtually all pending tax assessments suits, without regard to the issues, subject matter, and particular classification of property involved, which practice has been condemned by the Courts. Such interrogatories, and the manner in which they have been propounded, constitute a flagrant abuse of the discovery procedures. They impose an unnecessary and useless hardship upon the litigants and the Court. These identical interrogatories were stricken by order of the Court, but defendants have refiled the same interrogatories, word for word, in virtually all tax assessment suits pending before this Court. Such interrogatories were not filed and refiled for any proper purpose, but solely for the purpose of oppression and harrassment. Under the rules, interrogatories are not intended to be utilized for the purpose of exploring all minute details of the controversy and delving into immaterial and inconsequential matters, under the guise of discovery.”
The order sustained the “general” objection “without prejudice to the right of defendants [Dade County] to file and serve proper interrogatories.”
Plaintiff had also filed separate objections to the forty-three interrogatories.
We find that the trial court did not abuse the wide discretion which it has in discovery matters and this order is affirmed on the authority of Dade County v. Jordan Marsh, supra and the cases cited therein.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Salido, 354 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ial matters. Nor can such discovery be so unduly burdensome upon a party as to be oppressive. Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1975); Schering Corp. v. Thornton, 280 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1973); Dade County v. Jordan Marsh Co., 219 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d D.C.A.1969); Riddle Airlines, Inc. v. Mann, 123 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d D.C.A.1960). The orthopedic doctor bills ordered produced in the instant case are of doubtful relevance for discovery to the action at hand. They are obviously not admissi…
-
Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ts to the trial court’s discretion in his orders as to discovery procedure. See Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, Fla.1967, 199 So. 2d 97; and Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1965, 173 So. 2d 743. In Dade County v. Jordan Marsh Company, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 756, we were presented with a case where the trial jtidge exercised his discretion by sustaining a general objection to burdensome form interrogatories. We approved a statement that: “Under the rules, interrogatories are not intended to be utilized for…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Jordan Marsh Co., 225 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 219 So. 2d 756.…
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. v. Jordan Marsh Co., 208 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)