Calderbank v. Cazares

Citation: 435 So. 2d 377Docket: 82-594

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 28, 1983; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal was filed by witness James Calderbank and his attorney Thomas A. Bustin against an order compelling Calderbank to answer questions posed by the Church of Scientology and requiring them to pay attorney's fees. The underlying case involves Gabriel Cazares and his wife suing the Church of Scientology for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and invasion of privacy, stemming from a prior dismissed federal lawsuit filed by the Church against Cazares in 1976. The appeal centers on whether the questions directed at Calderbank were relevant to the ongoing litigation and likely to lead to admissible evidence, as per Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1).

Calderbank was questioned about his involvement with organizations related to the Scientology Victims Defense Fund and his interactions with attorney Michael Flynn, despite having no acquaintance with Cazares until 1979. The Church argued that Cazares' intent or hostility towards it in 1976 was pertinent to proving its earlier lawsuit was not malicious. However, the court found that the primary concern should be the Church's intent towards Cazares and that the questions posed failed to demonstrate a reasonable connection to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The court emphasized that merely suggesting that irrelevant inquiries could potentially yield relevant evidence does not suffice; a clear logical link must be established. Since the relevance of the information sought was not evident, the order compelling Calderbank's discovery was quashed.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. concurs with the outcome of the case but critiques the stringent limits on discovery outlined in Judge Cowart's opinion. He notes that while the witness was questioned extensively about his relationship with the Church of Scientology, the Church's counsel did not adequately justify how these inquiries related to the motivations of Cazares years earlier. Upchurch emphasizes that the questions appeared aimed at revealing personal bias rather than relevant evidence, and asserts that when an objection is made, the party asking the questions must clarify their relevance, which was not done here.

Judge SHARP dissents, arguing that the trial court correctly found that the questioned answers could potentially lead to admissible evidence relevant to the case, where Cazares alleges malicious prosecution and invasion of privacy stemming from a 1976 lawsuit by the Church. Sharp contends that the Church aimed to explore Cazares' motivations for his statements in that suit, and that Calderbank, due to his friendship with Cazares, might possess relevant information. Sharp criticizes the majority's restrictive approach to discovery, asserting it undermines the purpose of modern discovery rules, which allow for broader inquiry into facts that may pertain to either party's claims or defenses, rejecting the notion that a party can be excluded from discovery merely for being on a "fishing expedition."

Cazares v. The Church of Scientology of California is an ongoing case in the Volusia County circuit court, Florida. A non-party witness, Calderbank, was scheduled for deposition in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. When he hesitated to answer certain questions, the deposing party moved to compel his testimony in Volusia County. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(1) mandates that a motion to compel a non-party deponent be filed in the circuit court where the deposition is conducted. Since no venue objection was raised during the hearing on the motion, this issue was waived. The Volusia County circuit court had jurisdiction over both the parties and the subject matter, meaning the motion to compel was valid. The court's ruling in this instance is regarded as a final order, subject to appellate review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A). It could also have been treated as a petition for certiorari, as discussed in case law. Additionally, references to Calderbank's potential involvement in matters related to the Church of Scientology and relevant legal analyses are noted.