Adventure Marine & Outdoor, Inc. v. Brennan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adventure Marine & Outdoor, Inc. v. Brennan

807 So. 2d 780, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1877, 2002 WL 242693

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-3487

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 807 So. 2d 780 (Adventure Marine & Outdoor, Inc. v. Brennan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adventure Marine & Outdoor, Inc. v. Brennan, 807 So. 2d 780, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1877, 2002 WL 242693 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This petition for writ of certiorari seeks review of an order which granted a motion for protective order and denied a motion to compel production of photographs and videotapes. This is not a case where the trial court has prevented a litigant from deposing the other party or a material witness. See Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Ruiz v. Steiner, 599 So.2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hill, 388 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Nor does the discovery sought go to the heart of the case or a basic element of the cause of action for which there is no adequate substitute. See Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. Edwards, 528 So.2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Marshall v. Anderson, 459 So.2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The discovery issue sought to be reviewed may be remedied on final appeal, if necessary. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Esman v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, 425 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

PETITION DENIED.

ERVIN, BENTON and POLSTON, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This petition for writ of certiorari seeks review of an order which granted a motion for protective order and denied a motion to compel production of photographs and videotapes. This is not a case where the trial court has prevented a litigant from deposing the other party or a material witness. See Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Ruiz v. Steiner, 599 So.2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hill, 388 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Nor does the discovery sought go to the heart of the case or a basic element of the cause of action for which there is no adequate substitute. See Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. Edwards, 528 So.2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Marshall v. Anderson, 459 So.2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The discovery issue sought to be reviewed may be remedied on final appeal, if necessary. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. Esman v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, 425 So.2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

PETITION DENIED.

ERVIN, BENTON and POLSTON, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

807 So. 2d 780, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1877, 2002 WL 242693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adventure-marine-outdoor-inc-v-brennan-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack