ROBERT HOOGLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
DOLLAR LAND CORPORATION, LTD., (U. S.), 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.
This case involves an interlocutory appeal where the defendant sought to limit discovery. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion for a protective order entirely, reversing the order in part.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for a protective order in its entirety. The appellant was entitled to a protective order regarding most of the requested discovery because it was not relevant at this time and did not appear reasonably likely to lead to relevant matters.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for a protective order when a significant portion of the discovery sought is irrelevant to the current claims.
[2] Discovery requests for documentary evidence related to a lease agreement are generally relevant and not subject to protection.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We feel the trial court abused his discretion in totally denying appellant’s motion for protective order.”
Establishes the appellate court's finding of error by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee sued the appellant for rent due under a lease and for an injunction to prevent the disposal of personal property. The appellee noticed th…
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 Relevance In Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
By this interlocutory appeal defendant Robert Hoogland seeks review of an order of the trial court denying his motion for a protective order seeking to limit discovery.
Appellee sued appellant Hoogland and another in two counts, one count seeking recovery of rent due under a written lease, the other count seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from destroying or disposing of certain personal property in the leased premises.
Appellee noticed appellant Hoogland for a deposition and commanded him (in accordance with a court order) to produce (a) documentary evidence relative to the lease of the premises in question, (b) inventories of assets located in the leased premises and other assets owned by appellant Hoogland, and (c) income tax returns and a host of other financial data.
We feel the trial court abused his discretion in totally denying appellant’s motion for protective order. The matters described in item (1) of the Notice of Taking Deposition were relevant and not subject to protection. This is true also of that portion of item (3) as to the inventories and assets located in the leased premises. The matters mentioned in the remainder 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 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 order appealed from is reversed in part and remanded with directions to enter a protective order as to all of the documents sought by the appellees’ Notice of Taking Deposition except (a) those described in item (1) and (b) the inventories and assets located at Hoogland House Restaurant in the Pan American Bank Building, Orlando.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Peralta, 358 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…of the proceedings in the trial court there has been no showing of relevancy to the cause of the documents sought to be produced and they too should have been entitled to a protective order on that ground. Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corporation, Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla.4th DCA 1976). Lastly, we are confronted with the question of doctor/patient privilege as to persons not a party to the suit. Surely when one brings a medical malpractice suit, such as the instant case, one’s medical history'becomes the subjec…
-
Graphic Assocs., Inc. v. Riviana Rest. Corp., 461 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…. Yohanan v. deClaire, 435 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Also, by way of framing the issue to be subsequently discussed, we remind that only matters relevant to the subject matter of the litigation are discoverable. Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corp., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Begel v. Hirsch, 350 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1978). Additionally, Rule 1.280(b)(1) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure requires that matters sought to be discovered be relevant to th…
-
Manatee Cnty. v. Estech Gen. Chems. Corp., 402 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…right to discovery thus does not extend to matters which are not directly relevant and which cannot reasonably lead to relevant matters. Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, 346 So. 2d 100 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corporation, Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We hold that the questions asked below fall under the above principles. The issues in an action alleging a taking of land, or inverse condemnation, involve only the effect of governmental action on the use of the land. The quest…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leonhardt v. Cammack, 327 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)