MICHAEL BLACKFORD, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., 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 appellate court reversed a trial court's order granting summary judgment against the plaintiff as a sanction for discovery violations. The court found that the sanction was too severe given the circumstances.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion. The sanction of summary judgment was too severe because the plaintiff's conduct did not demonstrate a deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority or bad faith.
[1] Summary judgment as a sanction for discovery violations is the most severe of all sanctions and should be employed only in extreme circumstances.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by entering summary judgment as a sanction for discovery violations absent a showing of deliberate and contumacious disregard of the c…
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“We reverse the order entering final summary judgment against the appellant as a sanction for failing to comply with certain discovery orders.”
States the court's decision to overturn the lower court's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered final summary judgment against the plaintiff as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery orders regarding damage interr…
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 Deliberate Callousness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order entering final summary judgment against the appellant as a sanction for failing to comply with certain discovery orders. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court abused its discretion in entering this “most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances.” Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983) (emphasis added).
Although the trial court specifically found that the plaintiff “willfully disregarded numerous Court Orders regarding the Damage Interrogatories,” the record does not reveal that the plaintiff’s “conduct indicates ‘[a] deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority!,] ... bad faith, or a willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness.’” Gomez-Bonilla v. Apollo Ship Chandlers, Inc., 650 So. 2d 116, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(quoting Mercer, 443 So. 2d at 946); see also Florida Lime Growers, Inc. v. Bloomer Plastics, Inc., 665 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Reep v. Reep, 565 So. 2d 814, 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Pilkington plc v. Metro Corp., 526 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Zafirakopoulous v. South Miami Int’l Crabhouse Corp., 513 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1987).
While the plaintiffs answers to the defendants’ damage interrogatories clearly lacked specificity, this is in part due to the nature of the claimants’ relationship to the decedent and the inherently difficult-to-quantify character of the damages being sought. Notwithstanding this observation, however, “[o]ur reversal does not preclude the trial court, on remand, from compelling the plaintiff to more adequately and fully answer the questions propounded and to assess ... attorney’s fees and costs in that regard with the full understanding that after a further opportunity to comply, dismissal of the action may become appropriate.” Summit Chase Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc., 421 So. 2d 562, 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Summit Chase Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Protean Invs., Inc., 421 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Beauchamp v. Collins, 500 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Vasiliki Zafirakopoulous v. S. Miami Int'l Crabhouse Corp., 513 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Abel Gomez-Bonilla v. Apollo Ship Chandlers, Inc., 650 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Reep v. Reep, 565 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Pilkington PLC v. Metro Corp., 526 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Fernandez v. State, 665 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Fla. Lime Growers, Inc. v. Bloomer Plastics, Inc., 665 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)