Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner

423 So. 2d 1034, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22215

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 1982

DocketNos. 82-1835, 82-2170

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 423 So. 2d 1034 (Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner) 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

Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 423 So. 2d 1034, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22215 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Dow Corning Corporation, by consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari, seeks review of two orders requiring production of documents.

We find the orders compelling discovery contain sufficient safeguards to protect petitioner from disclosure of work product, trade secrets, and other privileged information. However, in light of the broad scope of discovery sought by respondents, Allibert and George Garner, the trial court’s failure to condition discovery on the payment of petitioner’s reasonable expenses of making discovery constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law with no adequate remedy by appeal. Schering Corporation v. Thornton, 280 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

Accordingly, we grant certiorari and direct the trial court to enter such further orders as may be necessary to conform to the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c).

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

HERSEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Dow Corning Corporation, by consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari, seeks review of two orders requiring production of documents.

We find the orders compelling discovery contain sufficient safeguards to protect petitioner from disclosure of work product, trade secrets, and other privileged information. However, in light of the broad scope of discovery sought by respondents, Allibert and George Garner, the trial court’s failure to condition discovery on the payment of petitioner’s reasonable expenses of making discovery constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law with no adequate remedy by appeal. Schering Corporation v. Thornton, 280 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

Accordingly, we grant certiorari and direct the trial court to enter such further orders as may be necessary to conform to the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c).

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

HERSEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 So. 2d 1034, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dow-corning-corp-v-garner-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack