Sun-Crete, Inc. v. Sun Deck Products, Inc.

472 So. 2d 519, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1533, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14922
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 19, 1985·No. No. 84-1223·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects but find the evidence which was before the trial court to be too speculative to support the compensatory fine of $330,000 for contempt. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction for rehearing solely upon the question of the amount of the compensatory fine. The parties, of course, may engage in further prehearing discovery.

It is not our intent to place appellees in a Catch 22 position by requiring them to meet their burden against recalcitrant parties which, or who, refuse to produce or disclose discoverable information. We feel comfortable that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide adequate sanctions to handle any further problems that may arise in this area.

DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents in part.

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

Sun-Crete, Inc. v. Sun Deck Products, Inc., 472 So. 2d 519, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1533, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14922 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

472 So. 2d 519 (Sun-Crete, Inc. v. Sun Deck Products, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related