Herman v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Herman v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.

35 So. 3d 188, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8195, 2010 WL 2292270

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 2010

Docket4D10-735

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 35 So. 3d 188 (Herman v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.) 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

Herman v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., 35 So. 3d 188, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8195, 2010 WL 2292270 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner J. Maurice Herman, a/k/a Maurice Herman seeks certiorari review of a trial court order denying his motion to compel production of documents and response to interrogatories. The order constituted a blanket denial of discovery requests. Petitioner has argued that this *189 left him unable to defend respondents’ declaratory judgment action and unable to prosecute his counterclaim. In these circumstances, we find a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in material harm of an irreparable nature. See Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So.3d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Power Plant Entm’t, LLC v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Dev. Co., 958 So.2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Respondents advise that the trial court has subsequently entered a partial summary judgment on the declaratory judgment action, and allege that they have agreed to provide, or have provided, some of the requested discovery already. The latter assertion is disputed by petitioner. The former does not necessarily demonstrate that petitioner’s discovery requests and issues are now moot. Accordingly, we quash the trial court’s order denying all discovery and remand with directions to the trial court to consider these assertions in entertaining petitioner’s requests for discovery, item by item. Compare Hitchcock v. Proudfoot Consulting Co., 19 So.3d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

STEVENSON, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner J. Maurice Herman, a/k/a Maurice Herman seeks certiorari review of a trial court order denying his motion to compel production of documents and response to interrogatories. The order constituted a blanket denial of discovery requests. Petitioner has argued that this *189 left him unable to defend respondents’ declaratory judgment action and unable to prosecute his counterclaim. In these circumstances, we find a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in material harm of an irreparable nature. See Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So.3d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Power Plant Entm’t, LLC v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Dev. Co., 958 So.2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Respondents advise that the trial court has subsequently entered a partial summary judgment on the declaratory judgment action, and allege that they have agreed to provide, or have provided, some of the requested discovery already. The latter assertion is disputed by petitioner. The former does not necessarily demonstrate that petitioner’s discovery requests and issues are now moot. Accordingly, we quash the trial court’s order denying all discovery and remand with directions to the trial court to consider these assertions in entertaining petitioner’s requests for discovery, item by item. Compare Hitchcock v. Proudfoot Consulting Co., 19 So.3d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

STEVENSON, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 So. 3d 188, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8195, 2010 WL 2292270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herman-v-jp-morgan-securities-inc-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack