DON MOTT AGENCY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
BYRD PULLUM, RESPONDENT
DON MOTT AGENCY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
BYRD PULLUM, RESPONDENT
352 So. 2d 107
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1977)
Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of certiorari filed by petitioner, Don Mott Agency, Inc., is granted, and the order of the trial court granting the motions of respondent, Byrd Pullum, to quash a subpoena duces tecum and for a protective order is reversed.
Respondent Pullum did not show by a timely motion to quash that the subpoena duces tecum requested by petitioner is “unreasonable and oppressive” as required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.410(b) nor show by a motion for a protective order that good cause is present to limit or prohibit the discovery sought by petitioner due to “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” as required by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(c).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…. . the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of any attorney or other representative of a party,” such materials are outside the scope of discovery, and not reachable by the discovery process. Don Mott Agency, Inc. v. Pullum, 352 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), is not controlling because that case dealt with materials for which no privilege was asserted. The respondent in Don Mott argued the discovery sought should be limited because it was “unreasonable and oppressive” and designed to…1 / 2
-
Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Egly, 507 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…er prior to the scheduled time for discovery, as required by rules 1.410(b) and (d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. This court has held that this constitutes a waiver of any objection based on unreasonable burden. Don Mott Agency, Inc. v. Pullum, 352 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). For the reasons we have given, the consolidated petitions for certiorari are denied. CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.…