Goeddel v. Davis
993 So. 2d 99, 2008 WL 4600995 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not abuse its broad discretion in discovery matters by compelling a nonresident plaintiff to return to the forum state for a second deposition and a compulsory medical examination when the plaintiff's uncooperative conduct primarily occasioned the need for further discovery, and reasonable accommodations, such as combining events and cost-sharing, are ordered.
Facts:
- Kristopher Goeddel, a South Carolina resident, initiated a medical malpractice action in Orange County, Florida.
- During his initial deposition, Kristopher Goeddel continuously responded to numerous questions by stating "I don't recall" or "I don't remember," even for questions not taxing to memory.
- Kristopher Goeddel also failed to disclose significant portions of his medical history in his answers to interrogatories.
- Respondents, Phillip J. Davis, M.D., et al., moved to compel a second deposition and a compulsory medical examination (CME) of Kristopher Goeddel.
- Kristopher Goeddel did not oppose the second deposition and CME but demanded that both be conducted in South Carolina.
- A general magistrate found that the need for a second deposition was occasioned primarily by Kristopher Goeddel's failure to be "forthcoming" in his initial deposition.
- The magistrate recommended that respondents' motion to compel be granted, provided the deposition and CME were scheduled for a single trip to Florida, and respondents paid for one-half of Kristopher Goeddel's airfare and reasonable meal costs for one day.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristopher Goeddel filed a medical malpractice action in Orange County, Florida.
- Respondents moved to compel Kristopher Goeddel to appear for a second deposition and a compulsory medical examination (CME).
- A general magistrate heard the motion and recommended granting it with conditions.
- Kristopher Goeddel filed exceptions to the magistrate's report.
- The trial court denied Kristopher Goeddel's exceptions and adopted the magistrate's recommendations.
- Kristopher Goeddel filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, seeking to overturn the trial court's order.
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 Florida trial court abuse its discretion by compelling a nonresident plaintiff to return to Florida for a second deposition and a compulsory medical examination (CME) when the need for further discovery was primarily caused by the plaintiff's uncooperative conduct, and the expenses are partially covered by the defendants?
Opinions:
Majority - Evander, J.
No, a Florida trial court does not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law by compelling a nonresident plaintiff to return to Florida for a second deposition and a compulsory medical examination (CME) when the plaintiff's uncooperative conduct primarily occasioned the need for further discovery, and the examination is scheduled during the same trip with shared costs. Trial courts possess broad discretion in overseeing discovery. The magistrate's determination that Goeddel had not been "forthcoming" during his initial deposition and that the need for a second deposition was also occasioned by his failure to disclose medical history was amply supported by the record. Given that Goeddel's failures primarily caused the need for a second deposition, requiring it to be taken in Florida was not an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, requiring Goeddel to submit to a CME during the same trip to Florida, especially given the order for respondents to contribute to the cost of the trip, was also not an abuse of discretion. The court distinguished Tsutras v. Duhe, stating that case rejected requiring a nonresident plaintiff to submit to a CME in Florida at their own expense after already coming for a deposition, but suggested a different outcome if the CME was scheduled concurrently. The court also found Youngblood v. Michaud inapplicable as it concerned a nonresident defendant.
Concurring - Monaco, J.
I concur.
Concurring - Cohen, J.
I concur.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in managing discovery, particularly when dealing with nonresident plaintiffs whose own conduct necessitates further discovery. It establishes that a plaintiff cannot unilaterally avoid discovery obligations in the chosen forum by citing nonresident status, especially if their uncooperative behavior caused the need for additional proceedings. The court's emphasis on consolidating discovery events and mandating cost-sharing provides a practical framework for balancing the burden on nonresident plaintiffs with the defendants' right to comprehensive discovery, thereby ensuring fairness and efficient litigation.
