Summary
In a trust contest alleging undue influence, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal held that a blanket protective order denying all discovery of trust documents without a finding of good cause or individual analysis of requests departs from the essential requirements of law. Certiorari relief is appropriate where the discovery is relevant to standing and the order effectively eviscerates the petitioner’s claim, causing material injury not remediable on appeal. The court quashed the protective order and remanded for the trial court to either permit discovery or make specific good cause findings.
Holdings
- A protective order that precludes all requested discovery without a finding of good cause and without separately analyzing individual requests departs from the essential requirements of law; certiorari relief is appropriate where the discovery is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and the order effectively eviscerates a party's claim.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's blanket protective order denying all discovery departed from the essential requirements of law and caused material injury that could not be remedied on appeal.
Disposition
writ_granted
Cases Cited (4)
- Anderson v. Vander Meiden ex rel. Duggan, 56 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)(followed)
- Allstate Ins. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999)(relied_upon_indirectly)
- Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem'l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)(followed)
- Stewart v. Johnson, Stewart v. Johnson, 142 Fla. 425, 194 So. 869 (1940)(cited_in_defendant_argument)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.