CHRISTINE JENNINGS, ELLEN FEDDER, LANCE JONES, ERNEST LASCHE A/K/A/ MIKE LASCHE, BARBARA KLEIN, LOIS HARMES, JOHN MINDER, DOVIE MURRAY, JOHN MCBRIDE, SUSAN GAAR, GARY LAMER, AND CHARLES CLIFTON (COLLECTIVELY, "VOTER PLAINTIFFS" OR "PETITIONERS"), PETITIONERS,
v.
ELECTIONS CANVASSING COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; SARASOTA COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD; KATHY DENT, AS SARASOTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS; SUE M. COBB, AS SECRETARY OF THE STATE TO FLORIDA; DAWN K. ROBERTS, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; VERN BUCHANAN; AND ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE, INC., RESPONDENTS
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 court denied a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a trial court's order denying discovery motions seeking disclosure of voting machine source code and proprietary technology in a close congressional election, holding that discovery denials are not ordinarily reviewable by certiorari absent extraordinary circumstances showing irreparable harm.
An order denying discovery is not reviewable by certiorari unless the petitioner demonstrates an extraordinary burden showing the trial court departed from essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable, material injury that cannot be rectified on direct appeal.
[1] Orders denying discovery are ordinarily not reviewable by certiorari because harm from such orders can be rectified on plenary appeal, and certiorari review requires a sh…
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 intelligenceVoter plaintiffs sought discovery of trade secrets, source code, and proprietary technology related to voting machines used in the November 2006 Flori…
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 Trade Secrets cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, C.J.
The petitioners seek certiorari review of the trial court’s non-final order denying motions to compel discovery, including a request to order the respondents to disclose trade secrets, including the source code and other proprietary technology associated with certain voting machines used in the Florida Thirteenth Congressional District in the November 2006 election, which Petitioner Christine Jennings lost to Respondent Vern Buchanan by fewer than 400 votes, according to the certified election results. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § (4)(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(A). “We recognize that an order denying discovery is ordinarily not reviewable by certiorari because the harm from such orders, as a general rule, can be rectified on plenary appeal.” Ruiz v. Steiner, 599 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
This is such a situation. Because the petitioners have not met their extraordinary burden to demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, resulting in irreparable, material injury for the remaining trial proceedings that cannot be rectified on direct appeal, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987); S.Y. v. McMillan, 563 So. 2d 807, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (denying petition for writ of certiorari, where petitioner failed to show that the trial court departed from “a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice which cannot be remedied on direct appeal”).
PETITION FOR WRIT DENIED.
POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eutsay v. State, 103 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…urt erroneously compels the exchange of information (the proverbial “cat out of the bag” orders), the harm done by the failure to provide information can be corrected on appeal in most cases. Jennings v. Elections Canvassing Comm’n of State of Fla., 958 So. 2d 1083, 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see Mingle v. State, 429 So. 2d 850, 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (denying a petition for writ of certiorari challenging the denial of a motion to compel disclosure of the name of a confidential informant due to the defendant’s…
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Ruiz v. Leonard Steiner, M.D., 599 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- S.Y. v. McMILLAN, 563 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)