From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dow Corning Corporation v. Garner

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Dec 29, 1982
423 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

Nos. 82-1835, 82-2170.

December 29, 1982.

Petition for review from the Circuit Court, Broward County, W. Herbert Moriarty, J.

Marc Cooper of Greene Cooper, P.A., Miami, and David F. McIntosh of Corlett, Killian, Hardeman, McIntosh Levi, Miami, for petitioners.

Jack H. Vital, III, of Simons Schlesinger, Fort Lauderdale, and Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow Olin, P.A., Miami, for respondents.


Petitioner, Dow Corning Corporation, by consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari, seeks review of two orders requiring production of documents.

We find the orders compelling discovery contain sufficient safeguards to protect petitioner from disclosure of work product, trade secrets, and other privileged information. However, in light of the broad scope of discovery sought by respondents, Allibert and George Garner, the trial court's failure to condition discovery on the payment of petitioner's reasonable expenses of making discovery constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law with no adequate remedy by appeal. Schering Corporation v. Thornton, 280 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

Accordingly, we grant certiorari and direct the trial court to enter such further orders as may be necessary to conform to the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c).

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

HERSEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dow Corning Corporation v. Garner

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Dec 29, 1982
423 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Dow Corning Corporation v. Garner

Case Details

Full title:DOW CORNING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v. ALLIBERT GARNER AND GEORGE M…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Dec 29, 1982

Citations

423 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

SPM Resorts, Inc. v. Diamond Resorts Management, Inc.

The trial court's order requiring SPM to pay up to $20,000 in costs and potentially more for the inspection…

Rinker Materials v. Navistar Intern

We recognize that this court has frequently mandated that expensive or burdensome production be conditioned…