Florida Courts Allow High-Ranking Corporate Officials to Plead Ignorance

1. The average temperature has increased by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
2. Carbon dioxide levels have reached their highest point in the past 800,000 years.
3. Sea levels have risen by 8 inches in the last century.
4. The rate of species extinction is currently 1,000 times higher than before human intervention.
5. The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events have increased in the past few decades. 1. The Florida Supreme Court amended the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to include current or former high level corporate officers in seeking protection from being subject to a deposition.
2. The rule change is based on the permissive approach to discovery, availability of protective orders, and the enforcement of the apex doctrine in the government context.
3. Florida Courts are now applying the rule change in pending cases, allowing high-ranking corporate officers to seek protection from depositions.
4. In the case of Petro Welt Trading et. al. v. Edward Brinkmann and Majab Development, LLC, the trial court did not depart from the law when it denied high-ranking corporate officials’ motion for a protective order, as the revised apex doctrine was not yet in place.
5. The Petro Welt Court encouraged the moving parties to revive their Motions for Protective Order in the trial court, as the new rule requires factual findings to be made by the trial court.
6. The adoption of the revised rule will benefit high-ranking corporate officers concerned about being deposed on a dispute in which they lack personal knowledge, potentially saving corporations legal fees and costs associated with depositions. 1. The Amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 was issued on August 26, 2021.
2. The ruling states a specific point at page 24.
3. The ruling also makes a statement at page 5.
4. The case of Petro Welt Trading, et. al. v. Edward Brinkmann and Majab Development, LLC was decided by the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal in 2022.
5. The ruling includes a specific point regarding the case.
6. Another specific point is also mentioned in the ruling.
7. The ruling contains additional important details.
8. There are further significant details in the ruling.
9. More relevant information can be found within the ruling.
10. The ruling includes more details about the case.
11. The ruling provides additional information about the case.

https://www.kirwinnorris.com/i-swear-i-dont-know-anything-florida-courts-adoption-of-the-apex-doctrine-applied-to-high-ranking-corporate-officials/