DeSimone v. Burger King Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DeSimone v. Burger King Corp.

568 So. 2d 987, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8126, 1990 WL 159674

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 1990

DocketNos. 89-2730, 89-3006

StatusPublished

This text of 568 So. 2d 987 (DeSimone v. Burger King Corp.) 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

DeSimone v. Burger King Corp., 568 So. 2d 987, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8126, 1990 WL 159674 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury suit sought production of the defendant’s safety manual. Defendant claimed the request was overbroad and irrelevant. The court issued an agreed order on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel production. According to the order, defendant’s counsel was to permit inspection of the manual. During this inspection, plaintiffs’ counsel was to tag the pages for which he sought copies. Defendant was ordered to either produce the requested pages or notify the plaintiffs that it considered the pages trade secrets, in which case the plaintiffs could move to have the pages turned over to the trial judge for in camera inspection. Thus, the trial judge could decide plaintiffs’ right to use the pages.

Plaintiffs’ counsel viewed the manual and tagged the pages he deemed necessary for the preparation of his case. Defendant’s counsel assured him the pages would be forthcoming unless the defendant considered them trade secrets, in which case plaintiffs would be notified so that they could move for an in camera inspection. Instead of following the court’s order, the defendant withheld the documents and failed to notify the plaintiffs of its decision not to release the pages. Defendant then moved for summary judgment.

We reverse on the state of the record, as it was premature for the trial court to award the defendant summary judgment when the plaintiffs, through no fault of their own, had not completed discovery. Societe Euro-Suisse v. Citizens & Southern Int’l Bank, 394 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman, 322 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We do not pass on the merits of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings, which may include subsequent motions for summary judgment when discovery is completed.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury suit sought production of the defendant’s safety manual. Defendant claimed the request was overbroad and irrelevant. The court issued an agreed order on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel production. According to the order, defendant’s counsel was to permit inspection of the manual. During this inspection, plaintiffs’ counsel was to tag the pages for which he sought copies. Defendant was ordered to either produce the requested pages or notify the plaintiffs that it considered the pages trade secrets, in which case the plaintiffs could move to have the pages turned over to the trial judge for in camera inspection. Thus, the trial judge could decide plaintiffs’ right to use the pages.

Plaintiffs’ counsel viewed the manual and tagged the pages he deemed necessary for the preparation of his case. Defendant’s counsel assured him the pages would be forthcoming unless the defendant considered them trade secrets, in which case plaintiffs would be notified so that they could move for an in camera inspection. Instead of following the court’s order, the defendant withheld the documents and failed to notify the plaintiffs of its decision not to release the pages. Defendant then moved for summary judgment.

We reverse on the state of the record, as it was premature for the trial court to award the defendant summary judgment when the plaintiffs, through no fault of their own, had not completed discovery. Societe Euro-Suisse v. Citizens & Southern Int’l Bank, 394 So.2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Commercial Bank of Kendall v. Heiman, 322 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). We do not pass on the merits of the plaintiffs’ complaint. The matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings, which may include subsequent motions for summary judgment when discovery is completed.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 So. 2d 987, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8126, 1990 WL 159674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desimone-v-burger-king-corp-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack