ALICE WATKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
MOTHER'S AUTO SALES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff brings this interlocutory appeal to review the lower court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories and the order requiring defendant to answer only those interrogatories propounded dealing with the transaction in litigation.
This court has meticulously reviewed all the interrogatories filed by plaintiff on December 29, 1971 to determine which ones defendant should be compelled to answer. A dual test was used requiring (1) that the interrogatories must narrow the issues, and (2) reach matters reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the pending action. The court has unanimously decided to compel answers to the following numbered interrogatories that were objected to by defendant: 10, 11, 12, 13, IS, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 32. A majority of the court has decided to compel answers to interrogatories 21 and 36. The court has unanimously agreed not to compel answers to interrogatories numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41. A majority has decided *440not to compel an answer to interrogatory number 14.
It is so ordered, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray Slatnick and Elsie Slatnick v. Leadership Hous. Sys. OF Fla., Inc., 368 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ories are in our opinion unreasonable. The petitioner also contends that the trial judge was in error, because he failed to consider the merits of each and every one of the interrogatories separately, and cites Watkins v. Mother’s Auto Sales, Inc., 264 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) as authority that each must receive separate consideration. It is true that in Watkins the court stated that it had meticulously reviewed all the interrogatories, but we do not construe this as a holding that it must always do so.…
-
Polonsky v. Alta L. Polonsky, 303 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…ria for determining the acceptability of discovery is whether the device was calculated to clarify or illumine questions relevant to the claim by the husband, and not whether the action by him is meritorious. In Watkins v. Mother’s Auto Sales, Inc., 264 So. 2d 439 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972) a dual test was applied to discovery requests: 1) whether they would narrow the issues and 2) whether they would reach matters reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the pending action. S…