TARMAC FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOE HILL AND SANDRA HILL, APPELLEES
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.
The Fourth District reversed a judgment for appellees and remanded for a new trial due to discovery stonewalling, improper admission of undisclosed documents, and exclusion of a deposition, finding the trial was unfair and confused.
A trial court must conduct discovery fairly, admit properly predicated depositions of party employees, and ensure parties have notice of documents before trial to prevent unfair and confused proceedings.
[1] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a)(3) provides no exception for the deposition of an employee of a party, and such a deposition is admissible upon proper predicate…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Appellant is not entitled to two bites of the apple, but is entitled to one fair one.”
The court's statement that while the ultimate result may be the same, it must be fairly achieved without confusion or stonewalling.
Tarmac Florida sued the Hills regarding payment and delivery issues. The Hills engaged in discovery stonewalling, undisclosed documents were admitted …
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 Discovery Abuse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the final judgment for appel-lees and remand for new trial as we believe the combination of appellees’ successful “stonewalling” of discovery, the trial court’s admission of documents not designated on appellees’ pretrial pleadings and the trial court’s refusal to admit an absent witness’ deposition produced an unfair trial and the confusion about which the trial court remarked in its final judgment.
On remand the parties are to use their best efforts to achieve an informed, unconfused result by the trial court on the issues of payment and delivery. The trial court is directed to take a firmer hand in achieving this result, and specifically is to require responsive answers to appellant’s discovery inquiries. At retrial, the three checks and one lien waiver in question will be admissible because appellant now has knowledge of them existence. Upon another showing of the proper predicate at retrial, as we conclude was established, the deposition at issue is to be admitted. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.330(a)(3) provides no exception for an employee of a party.
Appellant is not entitled to two bites of the apple, but is entitled to one fair one. In reversing, we recognize that the ultimate result may be the same but, at least, it will have been fairly achieved without confusion or stonewalling.
GLICKSTEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., and GRIFFIN, JACQUELINE R., Associate Judge, concur.