MURRAY VAN AND STORAGE, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
JOHN PHILIP MURRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF F. W. MURRAY, JR., A/K/A FLEMING W. MURRAY, AND REUBEN BERGSTROM, RESPONDENTS
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.
Murray Van and Storage, Inc. sought certiorari review of trial court orders that partially granted a protective order preventing discovery into an alleged common law marriage. The appellate court held that the trial court's reasoning—that the marriage was not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence—was legally insufficient to restrict discovery, and quashed the protective order limitation.
No. A protective order limiting discovery must be based on grounds of annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense as required by the rules, and the trial court's finding that discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence is not a legally sufficient basis for such an order. The possibility of a common law marriage is relevant to the subject matter of the action and therefore discoverable.
[1] Discovery rules permit deposition testimony on all matters not privileged which are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, even if not admissible at trial.
[2] A trial court may issue a protective order to prevent annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, but only for good cause shown.
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“The scope of such examination covers all matters not privileged which are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. The examination is not limited to what is relevant to the issues, nor is it limited to what would be admissible as evidence at the trial.”
Establishes the broad scope of discovery under Florida rules, extending beyond admissibility at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners sought to take a deposition of Maureen Rehard Murray, a non-party to the action, in connection with litigation involving F. W. Murray, Jr.…
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 Privileged Information cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Judge.
Petitioners seek review by writ of certiorari of two interlocutory orders of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County partially granting the motion of Maureen Re-hard Murray for a protective order. The orders in question were rendered in connection with Petitioners’ attempt to take the deposition of Maureen Rehard Murray, who was not a party to the original action below. The trial court found that Petitioners were entitled to take her deposition, but ordered that they not inquire into an alleged common law marriage between Maureen Rehard Murray and F. W. Murray, Jr. We grant certiorari because Petitioners have demonstrated to our satisfaction that the orders complained of do not conform to the essential requirements of the law and may cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which remedy by appeal will be inadequate.
After commencement of an action, any party may take the testimony of any person by deposition upon oral examination. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.310(a). The scope of such examination covers all matters not privileged which are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. The examination is not limited to what is relevant to the issues, nor is it limited to what would be admissible as evidence at the trial. Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1); Parker v. Parker, 182 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Continental Mortgage Investors v. Village by the Sea, Inc., 252 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
The trial court, upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, may enter an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense that justice requires. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(c). The only reason given by the trial court in the present case for the protective orders1 which are the subject of this review was “. . . that the putative common law marriage and any possible facts and incidents surrounding are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . ” Even if true this would not be a legally sufficient reason to prevent discovery.
The possibility that F. W. Murray, Jr. had a common law wife or that there exists a woman who may claim to be his common law wife, is relevant to the subject matter of this action. Certiorari is granted and that portion of the orders under review which prohibits Petitioners from examining Maureen Rehard Murray concerning any alleged common law marriage between herself and F. W. Murray, Jr. is quashed.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur. . There are two orders because the trial judge asked both sides to submit a proposed order encompassing his rulings and apparently inadvertently entered both orders.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simons v. Elfriede Jorg, 384 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…the test will not result in admissible evidence, and thus discovery should not be permitted. Even if this were true, the possible inadmissibility of the test results would not be sufficient to prevent discovery. Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray, 343 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280 (bXl). Discovery is permissible with respect to any matter that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, where the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admiss…
-
Rollins Burdick Hunter OF NEW York, Inc. v. Euroclassics Ltd., Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…the subject matter of the pending action ... [and] appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1); see Simons v. Jorg, 384 So. 2d 1362 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray, 343 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Spencer v. Spencer, 242 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied, 248 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1971). The trial judge gave no reason for denying RBH’s motion to compel. Even taking into account the broad discretion afforded the tria…
-
Suburban Propane v. The Est. OF Ralph Pitcher, 564 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)….e., the workers’ compensation claim as filed, and it is therefore immaterial that the parties subsequent to the filing of the claim limited the issues in controversy to that pertaining to the decedent’s AWW. In Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray, 343 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), the Fourth District, in granting certiorari and in holding that the lower court’s protective order limiting discovery was much too narrow, made the following observations: The scope of such examination covers all matters not pr…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker v. Parker, 182 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Cont'l Mortg. Invs. v. Vill. BY THE SEA, Inc., 252 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)