You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope

Citations: 756 So. 2d 201; 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 4400; 2000 WL 378253Docket: No. 2D99-4680

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 14, 2000; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, a law firm representing a plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to challenge a trial court's order compelling discovery. The respondent, a doctor, sought documents related to the law firm's interactions with an expert witness, invoking Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351. The law firm objected to the discovery request, arguing that Rule 1.351 permits objections to be self-executing until a deposition occurs, thus not requiring immediate justification. Despite this, the trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the law firm to comply with the discovery request and appear for a deposition. The law firm subsequently sought relief from the appellate court to quash the order, but the petition was denied on grounds of prematurity. The appellate court indicated that while the law firm’s arguments had merit, issues with discovery methods should be addressed after the deposition, allowing for a subsequent petition if necessary. The decision was unanimously concurred by Justices Whatley, Northcutt, and Casanueva.

Legal Issues Addressed

Discovery Procedures under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351

Application: The rule allows objections to discovery requests to be self-executing until a deposition occurs, negating the need for immediate justification.

Reasoning: The law firm objected to the production but was compelled to justify its objections during a hearing, which was deemed unnecessary as the objections under Rule 1.351 are self-executing until a deposition occurs.

Prematurity of Certiorari Petition

Application: A petition for certiorari was deemed premature because grievances related to discovery methods can be addressed after the deposition.

Reasoning: The court noted that while the law firm's arguments regarding the methods of obtaining information have merit, the petition was premature; any grievances following the deposition could be raised in a subsequent petition for certiorari.