Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Carl Ditmars

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-0179
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0179 Lower Tribunal No. 22-3934-CA-01 ________________

Costco Wholesale Corp., Petitioner,

vs.

Carl Ditmars, Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge.

Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., and Alyssa M. Reiter (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner.

Law Offices of Suarez & Montero, LLC, and Andres G. Montero and Arianna C. Ledesma; Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and Elaine D. Walter, for respondent.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

BOKOR, J. Costco Wholesale Corp. petitions for certiorari review of a discovery

order. The challenged order expressly allows discovery of irrelevant

evidence that would result in irreparable harm if disclosed. We therefore

grant the petition and quash the order below.

I.

Carl Ditmars sued Costco for negligence based on a claim of injury

while attempting to remove a heavy box from a shelf with assistance from a

store employee. During discovery, Ditmars requested production of all

documents reflecting Costco’s policies or procedures relating to the “stocking

and removal of heavy merchandise” from store shelves at the relevant

location. Costco initially objected to this request as overbroad and

encompassing confidential information but later claimed that no such policies

existed.

After Costco representatives indicated in deposition testimony that

store policies relating to the “lifting” of heavy items existed, Ditmars moved

to compel better responses to his prior discovery requests relating to

“stocking and removal of heavy merchandise.” When Costco failed to

comply, Ditmars also moved for contempt. Costco responded by claiming

that no policy documents specifically relating to “stocking and removal”

existed and that Costco considered its “lifting-related” policy documents to

2 be outside the scope of the discovery request. The court again ordered

Costco to produce the requested documents, and Costco produced only

documents relating to its “lifting” policies.

Ditmars again moved for contempt, and the trial court referred the

matter to a special magistrate. The magistrate’s report and recommendation

concluded that Costco willfully disregarded discovery orders. The report

recommended as a sanction that Costco be compelled to produce “all” of its

non-privileged policies and procedures “even if the documents exceed the

scope of Plaintiff’s Request for Production . . . and even if the documents are

not relevant to the subject matter of this action and do not relate to the claim

or defense of the Plaintiff or Defendant.” Costco filed exceptions to the report

and recommendation. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the

exceptions, adopted the magistrate’s recommendation, and directed Costco

to produce the requested documents. This petition followed.

II.

To be entitled to certiorari relief, the petitioner must demonstrate that

the challenged order departs from the essential requirements of the law,

resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case that cannot be

remedied on appeal. See, e.g., Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund

v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 454 (Fla. 2012). While “irrelevant

3 discovery alone is not a basis for granting certiorari,” the supreme court has

held that litigants are not “entitled carte blanche to irrelevant discovery” and

that discovery orders may warrant certiorari relief when they depart from the

essential requirements of the law and result in irreparable harm. Id. at 457

(quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 95 (Fla. 1995)).

“Discovery is limited to those matters relevant to the litigation as

framed by the parties’ pleadings.” Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66, 69

(Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Accordingly, “an order that entitles a party to carte

blanche discovery of irrelevant material demonstrates the type of irreparable

harm that may be remedied via petition for writ of certiorari.” Harbor

Healthcare, LLC v. Jacobson, 222 So. 3d 612, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)

(quoting Root v. Balfour Beatty Constr. LLC, 132 So. 3d 867, 869 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2014)); see also Langston, 655 So. 2d at 95 (quashing discovery order

“to the extent that it permits discovery even when it has been affirmatively

established that such discovery is neither relevant nor will lead to the

discovery of relevant information”); Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Blanco, 373

So. 3d 1178, 1182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (granting certiorari and quashing

discovery order requiring supermarket defendant to produce policies and

procedures relating to company-wide operations in slip-and-fall negligence

case relating to specific store); Life Care Ctrs. of Am. v. Reese, 948 So. 2d

4 830, 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quashing order allowing discovery of “all-

encompassing and confidential financial information that has no apparent

relevance to the negligence cause of action alleged”).

Here, there is no dispute that the challenged discovery order is patently

overbroad and encompasses irrelevant information; the report and

recommendation adopted by the trial court expressly directed disclosure of

“all of Costco’s policies and procedures,” including materials that are “not

relevant to the subject matter of this action and do not relate to the claim or

defense of the Plaintiff or Defendant.” While the order does purport to

exclude confidential materials, it still goes beyond the original request of

policies or procedures relating to the “stocking or removal of shelves.” Costco

also alleges that compliance with the order would require disclosure of

confidential business information and trade secrets such as marketing

strategies and client lists.

Ditmars argues that certiorari is inappropriate because the challenged

order was imposed as a sanction for discovery violations and such sanctions

are within the discretion of the trial court. But a court’s discretion with respect

to evidentiary matters is still constrained by the applicable law. See, e.g.,

Demoura v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 329 So. 3d 799, 800–01 (Fla.

5th DCA 2021) (“Trial courts do not have discretion to ignore the Rules of

5 Evidence or the Rules of Civil Procedure.” (citation modified)). Trial courts

may not grant discovery of otherwise irrelevant or confidential materials as a

sanction. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2) (listing sanctions that may be

imposed for failure to comply with a discovery order).

The claims in the complaint solely concerned whether Costco caused

injury by negligently organizing its store shelves or by failing to properly train

its employees or adopt procedures to avoid such accidents. Because the trial

court’s order improperly allows carte blanche discovery of materials

irrelevant to these claims, we grant the petition and quash the order because

it requires disclosure of evidence that is “neither relevant nor will lead to the

discovery of relevant information.” Langston, 655 So. 2d at 95.

Petition granted; order quashed.