Certiorari Review of Orders Denying Discovery in Civil Cases, Part I

The district courts of appeal generally don’t have the power to review orders denying discovery, unless the denial really hurts a party’s case. There’s a rare exception when the denial of discovery makes it nearly impossible for a party to prove their claim or defense. I’ve looked at a lot of court cases about this exception and I’ll explain it in this two-part article. In part one, I’ll talk about the history of certiorari, how the exception developed, and why the courts allow it. In part two, I’ll discuss the pros and cons of the exception, how it interacts with other legal issues, and give examples of how it’s been used. I’ve found about 140 cases on this exception, but there might be more. Also, the courts often use different terms to describe their decisions, but I’m using “dismissed” when they decide not to review a case. Certiorari is a legal term that means to be more fully informed. It has a long history in England and the United States, and it is used to review lower court decisions to ensure they follow the law. In Florida, the Supreme Court has the power to issue certiorari to review certain court decisions. However, it is a rare and extraordinary remedy and can only be used in specific circumstances. One of those circumstances is when a lower court denies a party’s request for discovery of evidence. Although the general rule is that denial of discovery does not result in irreparable harm, there is an exception in Florida where it can be reviewed through certiorari. This exception was recognized by different district courts in Florida, and it has become a narrow and limited way for parties to seek review of discovery denials. In 1971, the Fourth District made a decision in the case of Brennan v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County. The case was about a person who was denied the chance to question three employees of the defendant in a personal injury case. The district court said that the order denying the chance to question the employees was wrong. After this case, the Fourth District did not always agree that orders denying the chance to question people could be reviewed. The court has had different opinions on whether to review orders involving discovery, like when a judge denies a request for evidence or information in a case. Some cases say that a full appeal is enough to address the issue, while others say that a special type of review called certiorari is allowed in certain circumstances. Recently, the court said that it’s not common to do this type of review, but it can be done in important cases where the evidence is really necessary. Overall, the rules for when the court will review denials of discovery are still a bit unclear. The court made a decision in the case of Travelers Indemnity, which involved a lawsuit against an insurance company. The plaintiff claimed that their ex-wife took their possessions and the insurer refused to pay for the loss. The court decided that the insurer could not deny the plaintiff’s request to take the ex-wife’s deposition. From then until 2012, the court had the power to review orders denying discovery. They resolved some inconsistencies in a later case, and decided that their previous decisions on similar cases were not persuasive. They changed their approach based on this new decision. The courts still have the ability to review orders that deny the discovery of important evidence, even though it seems inconsistent with the larger body of law. The reason for this exception hasn’t been properly explained and different courts have cited it without considering whether denial of the requested evidence would prevent a fair appeal. This exception has been in place for a long time, but it needs more justification.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/certiorari-review-of-orders-denying-discovery-in-civil-cases-part-i/