9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 155a
Appeals — Certiorari — Discovery — Insurance — Order sustaining objections to interrogatory and requests to produce is not reviewable by certiorari where petitioner has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and has an adequate remedy on appeal
METROPOLITAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. EXCELSIOR HEALTH CLINIC, INC., as assignee of DIONY FLEURANT, Respondent. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Orange County. Case No. CI-00-9228. Writ No. 00-59. December 18, 2001. Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Counsel: Kimberly A. Driggers, Moriarty & Monroe, P.A., for Petitioner. Juan C. Gautier, for Respondent.
(Before ROCHE, PERRY, and MIHOK, JJ.)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRITOF CERTIORARI
(PER CURIAM.) Petitioner, Metropolitan General Insurance Company, seeks certiorari review of an order by the trial court denying certain discovery requests. For the reasons expressed below, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is dismissed.
On August 27, 1999, Diony Fleurant was injured in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, Fleurant was insured by Petitioner pursuant to an automobile insurance policy that included personal injury protection benefits. Respondent, Excelsior Health Clinic, Inc., provided medical services to Fleurant for injuries sustained in the automobile accident. Fleurant completed an Assignment of Benefits form on behalf of Respondent on August 27, 1999. Respondent submitted bills to Petitioner for the medical services provided to Fleurant.
On May 15, 2000, Respondent filed a Complaint against Petitioner alleging that Petitioner failed to pay or reduced the amount paid to Respondent for the medical services provided to Fleurant. On August 3, 2000, Petitioner propounded Interrogatories and a Request to Produce. The discovery requested information regarding Respondent’s billing practices and customary charges for medical services. Respondent objected to some of the interrogatories and requests to produce. On November 3, 2000, a hearing was held regarding those objections. On the same day, the trial court entered an Order on Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Interrogatories and Request to Produce.
On December 4, 2000, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(f). Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s decision to sustain Respondent’s objections to Interrogatory #8 and Requests to Produce #6 and #7. A Response was filed on February 2, 2001. A Reply was filed on February 19, 2001.
It is well established that the essential prerequisite to granting a petition for writ of certiorari is action by the lower court that will cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the proceedings below and for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1987). In order to warrant certiorari review a trial court’s order must be a departure from the essential requirements of law that causes an irreparable injury. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999).
In Interrogatory #8, Petitioner sought the following:
For the period beginning 30 days before the first date of service and ending 30 days after the last date of service please state for each service, by CPT code:
a. The lowest amount reimbursed by an insurer other than Medicaid or Medicare;
b. The amount reimbursed by Medicare;
c. The amount reimbursed by Medicaid;
d. The amount charged to uninsured persons.
Respondent objected to the interrogatory as “irrelevant; overbroad; vague; overburdensome; not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The trial court sustained the objection. In Requests to Produce ##6 and 7, Petitioner sought the following:
6. Copies of all HCFA 1500 forms or other statements issued to uninsured persons for the CPT code(s) at issue in this case for a 30 day period before, and a 30 day period after the date(s) of service at issue.
7. Any and all Explanations of Benefits or other documentation in Plaintiff’s possession indicating reimbursement from any and all insurers for the CPT code(s) at issue in this case for a 30 day period before, and a 30 day period after the date(s) of service at issue.
Respondent objected to the requests as “irrelevant; overbroad; vague; overburdensome; not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The trial court sustained the objection on the grounds that the requests were overbroad.
Petitioner argues that the failure to require Respondent to provide the above information will cause it irreparable harm in defending a personal injury protection suit where the sole issue is the reasonableness of Respondent’s charges. Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the trial court’s decision did not depart from the essential requirements of law. In its Reply, Petitioner claims that the trial court’s decision will cause irreparable harm, necessitating a new trial.
In this case, Petitioner seeks certiorari review of a denial of requests for discovery. “[A]n order denying discovery is not ordinarily reviewable by certiorari.” See Office of the Attorney General v. Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc., 2001 WL 1190971 (Fla. 3d DCA) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D2429]. The Fifth District Court of Appeal has permitted certiorari review of an order denying a petitioner’s right to take a deposition of a material witness. See Travelers Indemnity Company v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In that case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal found that the denial could not be remedied on appeal because there would be no practical way to determine after judgment what the testimony would be or how it would affect the result. Id. at 650. More recently, the Third District Court of Appeal in Millennium permitted certiorari review in a case where the petitioner sought production of certain documents. See Office of the Attorney General v. Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc., 2001 WL 1190971 (Fla. 3d DCA) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D2429]. The court in Millennium cited Hill and relied on the same logic in permitting certiorari review of an order granting a protective order.
This Court finds that the instant case does not warrant an exception from the general rule. Certiorari review is an extraordinary remedy that should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule. See Martin-Johnson, 509 So. 2d at 1098. Not every erroneous discovery order creates certiorari jurisdiction because some orders are subject to adequate redress on appeal. Boecher, 733 So. 2d at 999; Martin-Johnson, at 1099. The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that Petitioner has an adequate remedy on appeal.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DISMISSED. (ROCHE, PERRY and MIHOK, JJ., concur.)
* * *
