Case Name: SUN-CRETE, INC., Sun-Crete of Carolina, Inc., and John Meincke, Appellants, v. SUN DECK PRODUCTS, INC., and Sun Surfaces, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-06-19
Citations: 472 So. 2d 519
Docket Number: No. 84-1223
Parties: SUN-CRETE, INC., Sun-Crete of Carolina, Inc., and John Meincke, Appellants, v. SUN DECK PRODUCTS, INC., and Sun Surfaces, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
Judges: DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 472
Pages: 519–520

Head Matter:
SUN-CRETE, INC., Sun-Crete of Carolina, Inc., and John Meincke, Appellants, v. SUN DECK PRODUCTS, INC., and Sun Surfaces, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
No. 84-1223.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 19, 1985.
Rehearing Denied July 30, 1985.
Glen Rafkin of Young, Stern & Tannen-baum, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellants.
Richard M. Birnbaum, Fort Lauderdale, and Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm in all respects but find the evidence which was before the trial court to be too speculative to support the compensatory fine of $330,000 for contempt. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction for rehearing solely upon the question of the amount of the compensatory fine. The parties, of course, may engage in further prehearing discovery.
It is not our intent to place appellees in a Catch 22 position by requiring them to meet their burden against recalcitrant parties which, or who, refuse to produce or disclose discoverable information. We feel comfortable that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provide adequate sanctions to handle any further problems that may arise in this area.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
LETTS, J., dissents in part.