Northrup Grumman Corp. v. Swope

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Northrup Grumman Corp. v. Swope

717 So. 2d 213, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11851, 1998 WL 643086

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 18, 1998

DocketNo. 98-1576

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 717 So. 2d 213 (Northrup Grumman Corp. v. Swope) 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

Northrup Grumman Corp. v. Swope, 717 So. 2d 213, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11851, 1998 WL 643086 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Northrup Grumman Corporation petitions for certiorari review of discovery orders requiring it to produce documents and answer interrogatories in an action brought against it for an equitable bill of discovery. Northrup has complied with much of the discovery requests, but has asserted that further compliance would go beyond the scope of a bill of discovery and would require them to submit data acquired as work product.

We agree that Northrup has submitted information to the plaintiff that meets the scope of a bill of discovery so that the latter may identify potential defendants, theories of liability, and gain information sufficient to determine the manner in which the accident occurred. See Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 694 F.Supp. 889, 892 (S.D.Fla.1988); Adventist [214]*214Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Hegwood, 569 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). A bill of discovery may not be used “as a fishing expedition to see if causes of action exist.” Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So.2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), quoting Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Frazier, 696 So.2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the discovery orders under review.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDERS QUASHED.

GRIFFIN, C. J., and DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Northrup Grumman Corporation petitions for certiorari review of discovery orders requiring it to produce documents and answer interrogatories in an action brought against it for an equitable bill of discovery. Northrup has complied with much of the discovery requests, but has asserted that further compliance would go beyond the scope of a bill of discovery and would require them to submit data acquired as work product.

We agree that Northrup has submitted information to the plaintiff that meets the scope of a bill of discovery so that the latter may identify potential defendants, theories of liability, and gain information sufficient to determine the manner in which the accident occurred. See Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 694 F.Supp. 889, 892 (S.D.Fla.1988); Adventist [214]*214Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Hegwood, 569 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). A bill of discovery may not be used “as a fishing expedition to see if causes of action exist.” Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So.2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), quoting Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Frazier, 696 So.2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the discovery orders under review.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDERS QUASHED.

GRIFFIN, C. J., and DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 So. 2d 213, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 11851, 1998 WL 643086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northrup-grumman-corp-v-swope-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack