21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 624a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2107HERRInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Error to compel claims adjuster to travel from Orange County to Broward County for deposition
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. INS. CO., Petitioner, vs. HERMES HERRERA, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 12-368 AP. April 14, 2014. An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Judge Nuria Saenz. Counsel: Matthew D. Hellman, for Petitioner. George A. David, for Respondent.
Before RODNEY SMITH, FLEUR J. LOBREE, and MARIA VERDE, JJ.)
(VERDE, J.) State Farm has filed a petition for writ of certiorari, asking this court to quash the portion of a September 21, 2012 order which denies its motion for a protective order, thereby requiring its claims adjuster to travel from Orange County to Broward County for a deposition. We grant the petition.
“A petition for writ of certiorari is the appropriate method to review a discovery order when the order departs from the essential requirements of the law, causes material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, and effectively leaves no adequate remedy on appeal.” S.W. Florida Paradise Property, Inc. v. Segelke, 111 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D848a] (quoting Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D1742d] “ ‘The first two factors are jurisdictional, and an assessment of jurisdiction must be made prior to reaching the third.’ ” Sardinas v. Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D57a] (citing Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694, 698 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D324c]). Requiring someone to appear for a deposition somewhere that he should not be required to be deposed is a harm that cannot be relieved on subsequent appeal. See S.W. Florida Paradise Property, Inc., 111 So. 3d at 271.1 Accordingly, the two jurisdictional prongs of the requirement for a petition for writ of certiorari to review a discovery order are met.
It is therefore appropriate for this court to determine whether the order requiring the claims adjuster to travel from Orange County to Broward County for a deposition departs from the essential requirements of the law. We find that it does. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Howard Dinner, D.C., P.A., 72 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D2257c], the Fourth District found that “The county court erroneously compelled a State Farm adjuster who resided and worked in Hillsborough County, and who had not been designated as a corporate representative, to attend a deposition in Broward County.” In Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the Third District found that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying a defendant’s motion for protective order, which denial had the effect of requiring a nonresident corporation’s representative to be taken in Dade County. See also Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. Mustang Ranch Aircraft, Inc., 753 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D822d] (finding that, absent extraordinary circumstances, unless a defendant is seeking affirmative relief, the defendant will not be required to travel a great distance to be deposed by the plaintiff); Infinity Ins. Co. v. Gables Ins. Recovery, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 416b (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. March 1, 2010) (finding that “the trial court erred by ordering the litigation adjustor to appear for deposition in Miami-Dade County where the insurer did not seek affirmative relief . . . .”).
Given these ample authorities, the trial court erred, and departed from the essential requirements of the law, by requiring the claims adjuster in the instant case to travel from Orange County to Broward County for a deposition.2
Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the portion of a September 21, 2012 order which denies the motion for protective order.(SMITH and LOBREE, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1Such an injury, logically, cannot be remedied by postjudgment appeal because the trip, once already completed, cannot be “undone.”
2The fact that another panel of Eleventh Circuit judges denied certiorari without an opinion, in a case in which the trial court made a ruling very similar to the one involved in the instant case, in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Coral Gables Chiropractic, No. 10-498 AP (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. July 25, 2012), does not affect our decision. An appellate court’s denial of certiorari is not precedent for or against the arguments made during the course of the appeal. See Shaps v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 826 So. 2d 250, 253 (Fla. 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly S710a].
* * *
