Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Hessey

421 So. 2d 672, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28171
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 2, 1982·No. No. 82-832·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An order of discovery which requires a defendant to:

38. Please state the names and addresses of all persons who have complained to you or any of your distributors of malfunctions of the product or any design, defect of the product.
39. Please state the names and addresses of any persons who have made claims against you or started a lawsuit against you for the alleged mal[673]*673functions or defect of the product. Include in your answer the correct title, and place of the said action,

is too broad, even if subsequently limited to a seven-year period prior to the incident alleged in the complaint. The order under review which required such, is quashed with directions to limit the response to claims or causes of action relating to reasonable similar occurrences under similar circumstances. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So.2d 870 (Fla.1969); City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, 346 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Warn Industries v. Geist, 343 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); West Volusia Hospital Authority v. Williams, 308 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

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

Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Hessey, 421 So. 2d 672, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28171 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

421 So. 2d 672 (Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Hessey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mazda Motor Corp. v. Quinn
524 So. 2d 1021 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Nance v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
436 So. 2d 1075 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov
436 So. 2d 236 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)