Gevas v. Fernandez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gevas v. Fernandez

833 So. 2d 796, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11557, 2002 WL 1842873

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 2002

DocketNo. 3D02-2048

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 833 So. 2d 796 (Gevas v. Fernandez) 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

Gevas v. Fernandez, 833 So. 2d 796, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11557, 2002 WL 1842873 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEVIN, Judge.

The Gevases seek a writ of certiorari. We grant the petition as the order denying the motion to compel respondent’s deposition and discovery of documents departs from the essential requirements of law from which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. Medero v. Florida Power & Light Co., 658 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

In this case, despite the court’s statement that it would readdress the discovery matters if the case was not tried as scheduled, and Fernandez’s counsel’s representation that the requested discovery would be provided expeditiously, the court refused to consider the motion to compel discovery, believing discovery had been foreclosed at a prior hearing. Because the discovery sought was material to the central issue in the case, Lifemark Hosp. of Fla., Inc. v. Hernandez, 748 So.2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), certiorari is granted and the order under review is quashed.

On remand, the court is directed to compel compliance with the discovery requests as outlined in the petition and to allow a reasonable time for discovery prior to trial.

Certiorari granted; order quashed; and remanded with directions.

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

SHEVIN, Judge.

The Gevases seek a writ of certiorari. We grant the petition as the order denying the motion to compel respondent’s deposition and discovery of documents departs from the essential requirements of law from which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. Medero v. Florida Power & Light Co., 658 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

In this case, despite the court’s statement that it would readdress the discovery matters if the case was not tried as scheduled, and Fernandez’s counsel’s representation that the requested discovery would be provided expeditiously, the court refused to consider the motion to compel discovery, believing discovery had been foreclosed at a prior hearing. Because the discovery sought was material to the central issue in the case, Lifemark Hosp. of Fla., Inc. v. Hernandez, 748 So.2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), certiorari is granted and the order under review is quashed.

On remand, the court is directed to compel compliance with the discovery requests as outlined in the petition and to allow a reasonable time for discovery prior to trial.

Certiorari granted; order quashed; and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

833 So. 2d 796, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11557, 2002 WL 1842873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gevas-v-fernandez-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack