Logitech Cargo, USA, Corp. v. JW Perry, Inc.
817 So. 2d 1033, 2002 WL 1174315, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7710 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff is generally required to be deposed in the forum where the action is pending, and a trial court's protective order mandating that a defendant travel to the plaintiff's home state and serve subpoenas on party corporate representatives for depositions departs from the essential requirements of law, warranting certiorari review.
Facts:
- JW Perry, Inc. and Lan Chile Airlines are the plaintiffs in an underlying lawsuit against Logitech Cargo U.S.A. Corp.
- The corporate representatives of JW Perry, Inc. and Lan Chile Airlines reside in Wisconsin.
- All information relevant to the underlying case is located in Wisconsin.
- JW Perry, Inc. and Lan Chile Airlines were unable to obtain personal jurisdiction over Logitech Cargo U.S.A. Corp. in Wisconsin, necessitating the filing of the lawsuit in a Florida forum.
- Logitech Cargo U.S.A. Corp. is the defendant in the lawsuit and is not seeking any affirmative relief against JW Perry, Inc. or Lan Chile Airlines.
- The amount in controversy in the underlying dispute is $21,000.00.
Procedural Posture:
- JW Perry, Inc. and Lan Chile Airlines (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Logitech Cargo U.S.A. Corp. (defendant) in a Florida trial court.
- Logitech Cargo U.S.A. Corp. sought to depose the corporate representatives of JW Perry, Inc. and Lan Chile Airlines.
- The Florida trial court entered a protective order which prevented Logitech Cargo U.S.A. Corp. from taking the depositions of the plaintiffs' corporate representatives unless it first served subpoenas on them and traveled to Wisconsin.
- Logitech Cargo U.S.A. Corp. (petitioner) filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, seeking to quash the trial court's protective 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 trial court's protective order requiring a defendant, who is not seeking affirmative relief, to travel to the plaintiff's home state to depose the plaintiff's corporate representatives and to serve subpoenas for such depositions, conform to the essential requirements of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Ramirez, J.
No, a trial court's protective order requiring a defendant, who is not seeking affirmative relief, to travel to the plaintiff's home state to depose the plaintiff's corporate representatives and to serve subpoenas for such depositions, does not conform to the essential requirements of law. The court found that the trial court's order did not conform to the essential requirements of law and would cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal would be inadequate, thus meeting the criteria for certiorari review. Citing Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, the court reiterated that a plaintiff is generally required to be deposed in the forum where the action is pending. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs were compelled to bring their litigation in Florida due to inability to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in Wisconsin, and now sought to compel the defendant to travel to Wisconsin for discovery, which undermines the purpose of jurisdiction and venue laws designed to prevent 'haling defendants into foreign jurisdictions where they are not seeking affirmative relief.' The court noted that the plaintiffs' justification for the protective order (that witnesses and information are in Wisconsin) could apply to 'any plaintiff' and raised concern about the defendant's potential inability to afford travel, creating an unfair advantage. Furthermore, the court clarified that officers, directors, managing agents, or corporate representatives of a party must appear for deposition upon a simple notice of taking of deposition, not a subpoena, an issue which the respondents failed to address. Given the relatively small amount in controversy, the court suggested telephone or video depositions as a possible alternative.
Dissenting - Green, J.
No, the petition for certiorari should be denied because this case does not meet the requirements for certiorari jurisdiction. Justice Green argued that for certiorari review to be appropriate, the order must either clearly show that the trial court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or that the order did not conform to essential requirements of law and would cause material injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal would be inadequate, citing Ormond Beach 1st Nat'l Bank v. J.M. Montgomery Roofing Co. In this instance, Justice Green believed the order neither clearly demonstrated that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction nor violated an essential requirement of law that would cause irreparable harm sufficient to warrant certiorari review.
Analysis:
This case affirms the established principle that plaintiffs generally bear the burden of appearing for discovery, specifically depositions, in the forum they have chosen to initiate a lawsuit, particularly when the defendant is not seeking affirmative relief. It underscores the Florida appellate courts' use of certiorari review to rectify interlocutory discovery orders that deviate from essential legal requirements and cause irreparable harm. The decision serves to prevent tactical maneuvering by plaintiffs that could impose undue financial and logistical burdens on defendants, thereby maintaining fairness in the litigation process. Moreover, it clarifies the proper procedural mechanism for deposing corporate representatives of a party, emphasizing that a simple notice suffices, rather than a subpoena.
