Southfork Investments Group, Inc. v. Williams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Southfork Investments Group, Inc. v. Williams

613 So. 2d 940, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2029, 1993 WL 40430

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 1993

DocketNo. 92-04045

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 613 So. 2d 940 (Southfork Investments Group, Inc. v. Williams) 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

Southfork Investments Group, Inc. v. Williams, 613 So. 2d 940, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2029, 1993 WL 40430 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners (the corporations) seek certio-rari review of the order compelling production of all of its financial records. We grant the petition; the order is overbroad. See Jewelers International Showcase, Inc. v. Mandell, 529 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

In this action, George E. Williams sued John D. Burkey after Burkey defaulted on a stock purchase agreement in which Bur-key agreed to purchase Williams’ stock in the corporations. The complaint in four counts seeks damages on a promissory note, foreclosure of the security interest in shares of stock in the corporations, damages for breach of the stock purchase agreement, and declaratory relief as to Burkey’s rights of setoff under the stock purchase agreement. The corporations claim the issues involve only the fair market value of the stock. Williams disagrees. The corporations have produced the corporate income tax returns, the general ledgers, the balance sheets, the profit and loss statements, and the corporate stock books.

Although there may be a basis for the instant order, it is not apparent and we are not persuaded that any factors exist permitting us to distinguish the applicability of Jewelers from the matter at hand. Without articulation of the trial court’s reasons for its order, we are unable to discern the need for such broad discovery. Accordingly, we issue the writ of certiorari and quash the order compelling discovery.

Petition granted.

FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners (the corporations) seek certio-rari review of the order compelling production of all of its financial records. We grant the petition; the order is overbroad. See Jewelers International Showcase, Inc. v. Mandell, 529 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

In this action, George E. Williams sued John D. Burkey after Burkey defaulted on a stock purchase agreement in which Bur-key agreed to purchase Williams’ stock in the corporations. The complaint in four counts seeks damages on a promissory note, foreclosure of the security interest in shares of stock in the corporations, damages for breach of the stock purchase agreement, and declaratory relief as to Burkey’s rights of setoff under the stock purchase agreement. The corporations claim the issues involve only the fair market value of the stock. Williams disagrees. The corporations have produced the corporate income tax returns, the general ledgers, the balance sheets, the profit and loss statements, and the corporate stock books.

Although there may be a basis for the instant order, it is not apparent and we are not persuaded that any factors exist permitting us to distinguish the applicability of Jewelers from the matter at hand. Without articulation of the trial court’s reasons for its order, we are unable to discern the need for such broad discovery. Accordingly, we issue the writ of certiorari and quash the order compelling discovery.

Petition granted.

FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 So. 2d 940, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2029, 1993 WL 40430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southfork-investments-group-inc-v-williams-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack