Case Name: Everett L. REDGATE, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR the PREVENTION OF BLINDNESS, INC., Eye Bank for the Restoration of Sight, Inc., the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Inc., and Reader's Digest Fund for the Blind, Inc., Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-10-29
Citations: 389 So. 2d 1074
Docket Number: No. 80-1444
Parties: Everett L. REDGATE, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR the PREVENTION OF BLINDNESS, INC., Eye Bank for the Restoration of Sight, Inc., the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Inc., and Reader’s Digest Fund for the Blind, Inc., Respondents.
Judges: ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 389
Pages: 1074–1074

Head Matter:
Everett L. REDGATE, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR the PREVENTION OF BLINDNESS, INC., Eye Bank for the Restoration of Sight, Inc., the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Inc., and Reader’s Digest Fund for the Blind, Inc., Respondents.
No. 80-1444.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 29, 1980.
Margaret L. Cooper, of Jones & Foster, P. A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner, Red-gate.
G. William Bissett of Preddy, Kutner & Hardy, P. A., Miami, for petitioner, Parson.
James G. Pressly, Jr., of Gunster, Yoak-ley, Criser & Stewart, Palm Beach, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This matter has been considered on petition for writ of common law certiorari wherein defendant seeks to review an order denying discovery attempts by defendant. In question are certain interrogatories and requests for production regarding the securities transactions with which plaintiffs were involved over a period of several years. The trial court denied defendant's attempt at discovery in these areas. This case was previously before this Court in National Society for the Prevention of Blindness, Inc. v. Parson, 374 So.2d 531 (Fla.4th DCA 1979).
We conclude that there has been no demonstration of a departure from the essential requirements of law. Further, if error was committed in the limitation upon discovery which results in eventual prejudice in the trial of this cause, then the matter may be remedied by appeal after judgment. We conclude that there has been no demonstration sufficient to warrant this Court's taking jurisdiction by certiorari and, thus, deny the petition.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.