BROWARD COUNTY, PETITIONER,
v.
KENUTE KERR, 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.
Broward County challenged two discovery orders: one compelling it to answer interrogatories about a non-party former employee, and another requiring production of documents at opposing counsel's offices. The court granted the petition as to the interrogatory order but denied it as to the document production order.
A trial court lacks authority to compel a party to answer interrogatories directed to a non-party, and may not require a party to obtain information from former employees. However, a trial court may order production of documents at a location other than the party's offices when objections to time, place, or manner of production are made, and the trial court may specify the place and manner of production within its discretion.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to compel a party to answer interrogatories directed to a former employee who has been dismissed from the suit.
[2] Interrogatories served upon a governmental agency must be answered by an officer or agent with information available to that party.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court had no authority to order petitioner to respond to interrogatories directed to a non-party, see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.340 and 1.380(a)(2)”
Establishes the core holding that interrogatories cannot be directed to non-parties and trial courts lack authority to compel such responses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBroward County was ordered to answer interrogatories directed to Eziekiel Rivera, a former employee who had been dismissed as a party defendant on Apr…
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 Production Of Documents cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Broward County seeks review of an order entered on May 30, 1984, compelling it to answer interrogatories directed to its former employee, Eziekiel Rivera. Mr. Rivera was dismissed from the suit as a party defendant on April 19, 1984.
The challenged order clearly represents a departure from the essential requirements of law, as the trial court had no authority to order petitioner to respond to interrogatories directed to a non-party, see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.340 and 1.380(a)(2). Moreover, interrogatories served upon a governmental agency are to be answered by an “officer or agent” thereof “with information available to that party.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.340. Thus, the court had no authority to compel petitioner to obtain the desired information from its former employee.
Because the error complained of cannot be adequately redressed by appeal, see Donahue v. Hebert, 355 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); West Volusia Hospital Authority v. Williams, 308 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), we grant the writ and quash the order compelling petitioner to answer interrogatories directed to Mr. Rivera.
Petitioner also challenges an order overruling its objection to a notice to produce certain repair bills and estimates at the offices of plaintiffs attorneys arguing that it should not be required to deliver the documents to the offices of its adversary. It contends that it is only obligated to permit inspection of its records by respondent during normal business hours at the petitioner’s offices.
We do not find that any error has been demonstrated in this regard. Where an objection is made to the “time, place or manner” of production, and the parties are unable to agree, the trial court may, upon motion, enter an order under Rule 1.380(a) specifying the time, place and manner, and may further order who shall pay the cost of transporting the documents to the specified place of inspection. Cf Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b); 4A J. Moore, J. Lucas & D. Epstein, Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.19 (2d ed. 1984). In this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling the petitioner’s objection as to the requested place of production. Discovery which is otherwise appropriate should not be refused solely because production of documents would hamper a party’s business operations. Id. at § 34.19, See also Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. LeMay, 93 F.R.D. 379 (S.D. Ohio 1981) (holding that an unwieldy record-keeping system, requiring heavy expenditures of time and money to produce relevant documents is not an adequate excuse to refuse discovery).
Consequently, we deny the writ insofar as it seeks to quash the order requiring petitioner to produce certain documents at the offices of plaintiff’s attorneys, but we grant the writ and quash the order compelling answers to interrogatories.
GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abbey Parker v. Tia Arlene James, 997 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995). We have jurisdiction for certiorari review in this case because compelling Ms. Parker’s nonparty physicians to respond to interrogatories creates the potential for irreparable harm. Cf. Broward County v. Kerr, 454 So. 2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (finding that an order directing a party to respond to interrogatories directed to its former employee was an error that could not be adequately addressed by appeal); Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Vratil, 96 F. 3d 1337 (10th C…
Authorities Cited
- D'Amato v. State, 308 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Richard v. Donahue, 355 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)