ARTHUR G. LEONHARDT, JR., AS EXECUTOR OF . THE ESTATE OF ETHEL L. CRAWFORD, DECEASED, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
MARGARET C. CAMMACK, 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.
A real estate broker sought to recover a commission allegedly earned for procuring a buyer for property. The court reviewed interlocutory orders denying protective orders against extensive discovery and held that discovery must be limited to matters relevant to the core issues: whether an employment contract existed and whether the broker earned her commission before being discharged.
The court held that it was error to deny the motions for protective orders to the extent the discovery sought inquiry into or production of documents on matters not relevant to the core issues of employment and commission entitlement.
[1] Interlocutory orders denying motions for protective orders are reviewable by writ of certiorari when there is no full, adequate, and complete remedy by appeal.
[2] Discovery sought must be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It was error to deny the petitioners' motions to quash and motions for protective orders to the extent that the discovery sought inquiry or production of documents on matters not relevant to the above issues.”
Establishes the holding that discovery must be limited to relevant matters and protective orders should be granted when discovery seeks irrelevant information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 21, 1970, respondent Cammack was employed by petitioner Leonhardt (as executor of an estate) to find a purchaser for certain real property. Bet…
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 Real Estate Broker Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Judge.
By a petition for writ of certiorari petitioners seek review of certain interlocutory orders which (1) denied motions for protective orders and (2) denied a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike as to one of the petitioners. We treat here only the matters relating to denial of protective orders as there exists a full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal for review of the order denying the motion to dismiss and motion to strike.
Of the original five-count complaint filed by respondent/real estate broker, only Count I remains.1 Simply stated, Count I alleges that respondent was employed on May 21, 1970 by petitioner/Leonhardt to procure a purchaser for certain real property owned by the estate of Ethel L. Crawford, deceased; that pursuant to such employment respondent did, between May 21, 1970 and June 2, 1970, procure a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase said property upon the price, terms and conditions agreed.upon by petitioner/Leonhardt; that when respondent so informed Leon-hardt of this fact on June 2, 1970, he did, on the following day direct her not to proceed further in the matter; that at such time respondent/real estate broker had fully earned the agreed commission for which she was then suing, the same not having been paid. The issues made by the plead ings are simple: was there an employment contract and, if so, did respondent/Cam-mack earn her commission prior to being discharged. The employment is alleged to have occurred on May 21, 1970, the discharge on June 3, 1970.
The extensive discovery sought by respondent (as to which the petitioners’ several motions for protective orders were addressed) related to matters that were clearly not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. It was error to deny the petitioners’ motions to quash and motions for protective orders to the extent that the discovery sought inquiry or production of documents on matters not relevant to the above issues.
Certiorari is granted and the orders of March 14 and March 27, 1975 respectively are quashed and this cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
WALDEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur. . See, Cammack v. Lconhardt, 302 So. 2d 170 (Fla.App. 4th, 1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gruman v. Bankers Tr. Co., 379 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ncial information of.a type ordinarily discoverable only in aid of execution after judgment has been entered. See Cooper v. Fulton, 117 So. 2d 33, 35-36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); cf. Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1979);2 Leonhardt v. Cammack, 327 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1167 (Fla.1976). Therefore, we grant the petition and quash the order under review. We do so, however, specifically without prejudice (a) to the respondent’s right to discover the manner by which Gruman…
-
Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corp., Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…mainder of item (3) and the matters mentioned in items (2), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of the notice are not relevant at this time and it does not appear that they could reasonably [*510] lead to relevant matters. Leonhardt v. Cammack, Fla.App.4th 1976, 327 So. 2d 848. Thus, the appellant Hoogland was entitled to a protective order as to most of the material sought until such time as it may appear that discovery of those documents is relevant or that it may reasonably lead to relevant evidence. Accordingly, the…
-
Begel v. Ira Hirsch, 350 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…d the alleged injuries caused to Hirsch’s business by Begel. The trial court erred in denying Begel’s motion for a protective order to the extent that the notice to produce sought production of documents on irrelevant matters. Leonhardt v. Cammack, 327 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corporation, Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The period from 1971, covered by the notice to produce, is too long. The business was not sold to Hirsch until 1973. Furthermore, the documents sough…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Danzig v. Waller, 302 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Cammack v. Leonhardt, 302 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)