ERNST & ERNST, A PARTNERSHIP, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES D. REEDUS, RESPONDENT
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.
Ernst & Ernst challenged a discovery order requiring production of its partnership earnings statement and individual partner allocations, sought in connection with a punitive damages claim. The Florida appellate court granted certiorari and quashed the order, holding that the discovery request lacked proper showings of good cause and would be unduly burdensome and embarrassing without serving the legitimate purpose of establishing the partnership's financial ability.
The court held that the discovery order was improper because: (1) the motion to produce failed to show good cause as required by Rule 1.350 F.R.Civ.P.; (2) disclosure of individual partner earnings would not establish the partnership's financial worth or ability, which is the proper subject of discovery for punitive damages purposes; and (3) the order imposed undue hardship and embarrassment on the firm and its partners.
[1] A motion for discovery to produce documents must show good cause.
[2] Discovery requests seeking a partnership's net earnings of each partner are not proper discovery for establishing the partnership's financial worth or ability.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“By Rule 1.350 F.R.Civ.P., 30 F.S.A., such a motion to produce is required to show good cause.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that the plaintiff failed to meet in support of the discovery motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceErnst & Ernst, a nationally operating accounting firm with approximately 500 partners, was subject to a discovery order in a Dade County circuit court…
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 Unduly Burdensome Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
On discovery to obtain evidence as to the financial status of the defendant Ernst & Ernst (a nationally operating accounting firm), incident to a pleaded claim of the plaintiff for punitive damages in an action pending in the circuit court of Dade County, an order was entered granting a motion of the plaintiff to produce. Thereby Ernst & Ernst was ordered to “furnish the most recent statement of earnings for the Ernst & Ernst partnership (including an allocation of net earnings to each partner in the partnership, including limited partners, if any).” By petition for certiorari the defendant Ernst & Ernst seeks review thereof. We hold the petition has merit.
The motion to produce did not show, or purport to show good cause. It was moved that Ernst & Ernst be required to produce, for photocopying and inspection, the statement of earnings, as set out in the order. By Rule 1.350 F.R.Civ.P., 30 F.S.A., such a motion to produce is required to show good cause.
Additionally, we find merit in the arguments of the petitioner that a requirement for the partnership (of which it is represented there are almost 500 partners) to submit the net earnings of each partner for a stated period, would not constitute proper discovery in the premises because it would not serve to establish the “financial worth” or “financial ability” of the partnership,1 and would represent hardship and embarrassment to the members of the firm and be unduly burdensome. See Hollywood Beach Hotel & Golf Club v. Gilliland, 140 Fla. 24, 191 So. 30; Ormond Beach First Nat. Bank v. Montgomery Roofing Co., Fla.App. 1966, 189 So.2d 239. Therefore, discovery for that purpose, assuming it had been based on a sufficient motion therefor, and determined by the court to be otherwise appropriate, more properly should call for production of evidence of the “financial resources” of the defendant (see Standard Jury Instruction, No. 6.12, 31 F.S.A.) without imposing hardship or unnecessary embarrassment to the party required to produce.
Certiorari is granted, and the challenged order as it so relates to the defendant Ernst & Ernst is quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Danieli Corp. v. Russo, 329 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…vant to any of the issues framed in the complaint and the required production thereof constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law.1 Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So. 2d 512 (Fla.App. 1st 1973); Ernst & Ernst v. Reedus, 260 So. 2d 258 (Fla. App. 3d 1972); see also Trawick’s Fla. Practice & Procedure, 1975 ed., §§ 16-3 and 16-10. Accordingly, certiorari is denied as to petitioners Danieli Corporation and Dani-eli Marketing.2 Certiorari is granted as to petitioner Martino and the…
-
Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Early, 274 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…tatement and its corporate federal income tax returns for the years 1969, 1970 and 1971, respectively, on the basis that such defendant’s income was not in issue and was not a proper subject for discovery. Cf., Ernst & Ernst v. Reedus, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 258.…
-
Patricio Ceron and Linda Ceron v. Paxton Nat'l Ins. Co., 537 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Tropical Park, Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 357 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd. v. Kellin, 391 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); George v. Stone, 260 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The exclusionary clause involved in the instant case reads as follows: “This insurance does not apply: (b) to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of…
Authorities Cited
- Lehman v. Spencer Ladd's, Inc., 182 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1965)
- Ormond Beach First Nat'l Bank v. J. M. Montgomery Roofing Co., Inc., 189 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Spencer Ladd's, Inc. v. Lehman, 167 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Hollywood Beach Hotel & Golf Club, Inc. v. Gilliland, 140 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1939)
- Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Atlas Props., Inc. v. Didich, 213 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Lewis v. Moody, 195 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)