Beekie v. Morgan
751 So. 2d 694, 2000 WL 126199 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An order denying a party the ability to take an oral deposition without good cause, when such denial causes irreparable harm by fundamentally affecting trial preparation and cannot be remedied on post-judgment appeal, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and warrants certiorari review.
Facts:
- Chris Beekie and Montgomery Scott Morgan were involved in an automobile accident, leading to a personal injury lawsuit where Beekie was the plaintiff and Morgan the defendant.
- During Morgan's attorney's oral deposition of Beekie, Morgan's attorney demanded to see scars on Beekie's upper thigh, which Beekie's attorney objected to, and Morgan's attorney responded with offensive language.
- Later the same day, Beekie's attorney was scheduled to take Morgan's oral deposition, for which Beekie's notice stated it "may" be videotaped and provided the business name and address of the videographer.
- Morgan's attorney objected to the videotaping, claiming the notice was insufficient under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(4)(A) because it did not definitively state it would be videotaped and did not include the specific name of the video operator.
- To avoid potentially losing the ability to use the videotape at trial, Beekie's attorney elected to reschedule and re-notice Morgan's deposition.
- Morgan and his attorney failed to appear for the re-noticed deposition.
Procedural Posture:
- Chris Beekie (plaintiff) filed a personal injury lawsuit against Montgomery Scott Morgan (defendant) in circuit court.
- Morgan's attorney took Beekie's oral deposition.
- Beekie's attorney attempted to take Morgan's oral deposition, but Morgan's attorney objected to the notice regarding videotaping, leading Beekie's attorney to reschedule.
- Morgan and his attorney failed to appear at the rescheduled deposition.
- Beekie's attorney filed a motion to compel Morgan's deposition in the circuit court.
- The circuit court judge denied Beekie's motion to compel and granted Morgan's protective order, finding that Beekie had his "one chance" to depose Morgan and waived it.
- Beekie filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's order denying a party the opportunity to take an oral deposition, based on the belief that the party 'used up their chance' after rescheduling due to a technical notice objection, constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law and cause irreparable harm warranting certiorari review?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Sharp, J.
Yes, a trial court's order denying a party the opportunity to take an oral deposition, based on the belief that the party 'used up their chance' after rescheduling due to a technical notice objection, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and causes irreparable harm warranting certiorari review. Justice Sharp explained that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 explicitly states that the frequency of depositions is not limited unless specific exceptions apply, which were not present here. The court found no legal authority to support Morgan's attorney's interpretation of Rule 1.310(b)(4)(A) regarding the specificity required for videotaping notice, nor did Morgan's attorney file an objection or seek a protective order prior to the deposition. The trial court's denial of the motion to compel, based on Beekie having "used up his chance," was erroneous as a matter of law. While Rule 1.280(c) allows for protective orders based on "good cause" to prevent "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense," Morgan's attorney offered no such compelling reason, only inconvenience. The court emphasized the critical importance of oral depositions in trial preparation for cross-examination, assessing witness credibility, and exploring new avenues of inquiry, functions not adequately replaced by other discovery methods like interrogatories. The denial of this fundamental discovery tool caused a material injury that could not be corrected on post-judgment appeal, as it would be impossible to determine how the denial affected the trial's outcome. This imbalance fundamentally infected the judgment, creating irreparable harm and departing from the essential requirements of law, thus meeting the criteria for certiorari review.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental right to discovery, particularly oral depositions, in Florida civil litigation. It clarifies that trial courts cannot arbitrarily limit discovery based on a "one chance" rule without good cause. The decision underscores the high bar for obtaining certiorari review of discovery orders, emphasizing that such orders must cause irreparable harm and depart from essential legal requirements, which includes denying a critical discovery tool like a party's deposition without proper justification. This ruling ensures a level playing field in discovery and prevents parties from being unfairly disadvantaged due to an adversary's technical objections or uncivil behavior.
