Gamer v. Keen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gamer v. Keen

347 So. 2d 663, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15725

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 1977

DocketNo. 77-8

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 347 So. 2d 663 (Gamer v. Keen) 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

Gamer v. Keen, 347 So. 2d 663, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15725 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court 15th Circuit is granted and we review the Order of that court compelling discovery.

This matter began below with the filing of a Complaint alleging injury by defamation and assault and battery. Compensatory and punitive damages are sought.

The parties come to us during the discovery stages of the proceedings after the Defendant was required to produce his income tax returns, all financial statements, and all bank books and accounts; all for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. Further, the Defendant was required to answer in excess of one hundred interrogatories, all relating to his financial affairs except one asking for names of witnesses and another asking the names of persons who assisted him in [664]*664preparation of the answers to interrogatories.

Since punitive damages are sought, evidence of the Defendant’s present financial worth is admissible at trial and therefore discoverable. Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So.2d 762 (Fla.1975). We see no relevant reason for discovery of his financial worth one, two or three years before or after the trial as the interrogatories are seeking.

A properly authenticated financial statement is sufficient proper evidence. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So.2d 512 (Fla.1st DCA 1973). Income tax returns are not. Id. See also Spencer Ladd’s, Inc. v. Lehman, 167 So.2d 731 (Fla.1st DCA 1964), affirmed in 182 So.2d 402 (Fla.1965).

The Order requiring production is quashed except as to the financial statements which have been furnished. The Order denying objections is affirmed as to the question in regard to “name and address of each person who has knowledge of any relevant facts concerning” the litigation and quashed as to all other questions.

MAGER, C. J., concurs. CROSS, J., concurs only in conclusion.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court 15th Circuit is granted and we review the Order of that court compelling discovery.

This matter began below with the filing of a Complaint alleging injury by defamation and assault and battery. Compensatory and punitive damages are sought.

The parties come to us during the discovery stages of the proceedings after the Defendant was required to produce his income tax returns, all financial statements, and all bank books and accounts; all for the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. Further, the Defendant was required to answer in excess of one hundred interrogatories, all relating to his financial affairs except one asking for names of witnesses and another asking the names of persons who assisted him in [664]*664preparation of the answers to interrogatories.

Since punitive damages are sought, evidence of the Defendant’s present financial worth is admissible at trial and therefore discoverable. Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So.2d 762 (Fla.1975). We see no relevant reason for discovery of his financial worth one, two or three years before or after the trial as the interrogatories are seeking.

A properly authenticated financial statement is sufficient proper evidence. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue, 280 So.2d 512 (Fla.1st DCA 1973). Income tax returns are not. Id. See also Spencer Ladd’s, Inc. v. Lehman, 167 So.2d 731 (Fla.1st DCA 1964), affirmed in 182 So.2d 402 (Fla.1965).

The Order requiring production is quashed except as to the financial statements which have been furnished. The Order denying objections is affirmed as to the question in regard to “name and address of each person who has knowledge of any relevant facts concerning” the litigation and quashed as to all other questions.

MAGER, C. J., concurs. CROSS, J., concurs only in conclusion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 So. 2d 663, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gamer-v-keen-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack