WAL-MART STORES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
MARLANA CUMMING, 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.
Wal-Mart sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of allegedly irrelevant information. The court dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari does not lie to review discovery relevance absent a showing of irreparable harm.
Certiorari does not lie to review the relevance of discovery absent a showing that the disclosure will cause irreparable harm. The court's prior decision in Nissan Motors, to the extent it suggested otherwise, conflicts with Florida Supreme Court precedent and cannot expand certiorari jurisdiction.
[1] Certiorari does not lie to review the relevance of discovery, as disclosure of merely irrelevant information is not likely to cause irreparable harm.
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari will be dismissed if the petitioner fails to demonstrate that a discovery order will cause irreparable harm.
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“certiorari does not lie to review the relevance of discovery, since the disclosure of information that is merely irrelevant is not likely to cause irreparable harm within the meaning of Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage”
Establishes the foundational rule that irrelevance alone is insufficient for certiorari jurisdiction without irreparable harm
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWal-Mart received a discovery order requiring it to produce information described as irrelevant. Wal-Mart sought certiorari review of this discovery o…
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 Scope Of Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wal-Mart seeks to invoke this court’s discretionary certiorari jurisdiction to review a discovery order that requires it to produce what is described as irrelevant information. Because Wal-Mart’s has not demonstrated that the order will cause irreparable harm, we dismiss its petition for writ of certiorari. We write to resolve what has been viewed as a conflict in our recent decisions on the scope of our certiorari jurisdiction.
This court has explained that certiorari does not lie to review the relevance of discovery, since the disclosure of information that is merely irrelevant is not likely to cause irreparable harm within the meaning of Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987). See, Coyne v. Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A., 715 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Eberhardt v. Eberhardt, 666 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The Florida Supreme Court recently approved that view of the limitation on our certiorari jurisdiction. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boecher, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S187, 733 So. 2d 993, 1999 WL 231102 (Fla.1999).
However, Wal-Mart relies on our decision in Nissan Motors Corp. v. Espinosa, 716 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) to establish its jurisdictional claim. In Nissan, this court reversed an order requiring disclosure of irrelevant discovery information, without discussing in our published opinion whether the order posed a threat of irreparable harm. To the extent that our Nissan opinion could be read as dispensing with the irreparable harm factor of the test for certiorari jurisdiction, it conflicts with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Boecher and cannot be relied upon as an expansion of our certiorari jurisdiction.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORA-RI DISMISSED.
FAJRMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. STONE, C. J., concurs specially with opinion.
[*1249] STONE, C.J.,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion but note that I do not read our Nissan Motors opinion as dispensing with a petitioner’s need to demonstrate irreparable harm as a prerequisite to certiorari relief. Although I recognize that the Nissan Motors opinion does not address whether the court was concerned about the burdensome impact of the discovery sought, or whether we deemed the over-broad discovery in that case as causing irreparable harm, such would appear to be the likely, albeit not expressed, concern there. Neither do I read either Martin-Johnson or Boecher as precluding certiorari review of discovery that is so over-broad and/or burdensome as to create irreparable harm. I fully concur in our reiteration that certiorari is not available to challenge the relevance of discovery.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…on seeks review of that aspect of the order it is clearly premature. . Defendants also asserted that much of the requested discovery was irrelevant. In their petition for certiorari, they acknowledge that our decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Cumming, 736 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), bars certiorari review when the issue is bare irrelevancy but argue that this case involves much more. . Judges rarely hear testimony at motion calendar hearings; indeed the very purpose of this kind of hearing is usually to de…
-
In re Commitment OF Duane Edwin Sutton v. State, 884 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…s, and create undue burden and expense.” Certiorari generally does not lie to review the relevance of discovery, since the disclosure of information that is merely irrelevant is not likely to cause irreparable harm. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cumming, 736 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any irreparable harm will come to them from disclosure of the information they contend is irrelevant. Nor have the petitioners met their burden to demonstrate that they will be har…
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999)
- Coyne v. Schwartz, 715 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Eberhardt v. Eberhardt, 666 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Gerry B. Greene v. State, 716 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)