Case Name: N. Henry PEVSNER, M.D., Petitioner, v. Gertrude Ellen FREDERICK and Allstate Insurance Company, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-06-21
Citations: 656 So. 2d 262
Docket Number: No. 94-3134
Parties: N. Henry PEVSNER, M.D., Petitioner, v. Gertrude Ellen FREDERICK and Allstate Insurance Company, Respondents.
Judges: DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 656
Pages: 262–266

Head Matter:
N. Henry PEVSNER, M.D., Petitioner, v. Gertrude Ellen FREDERICK and Allstate Insurance Company, Respondents.
No. 94-3134.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 21, 1995.
Patrick B. Flanagan of Flanagan & Ma-niotis, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Philip M. Burlington of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani, P.A., and F. Kendall Slinkman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, a nonparty defense witness in the personal injury action below, seeks certiorari review of an order imposing sanctions against him for discovery violations. The order awards the plaintiff attorney's fees and costs incurred (to be paid by petitioner) as a result of the petitioner's refusal to answer questions during his deposition and his failure to appear for re-deposition. The order expressly stated that it was not holding the petitioner in contempt and includes no finding that the petitioner's disobedience was wilful. After the petition was filed, the trial court entered an order setting the amount of the costs and attorney's fees to be paid by the petitioner in accordance with the order under review, pending the outcome of these proceedings on the petition. We grant the petition and quash both orders, concluding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in ordering sanctions against a nonparty for a discovery violation in the absence of a finding of contempt.
Rule 1.380(b)(1), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (1994), provides for sanctions in the event that a nonparty deponent fails to comply with an order of the court requiring him to be sworn or to answer questions:
If a deponent fails to be sworn or to answer a question after being directed to do so by the court, the failure may be considered a contempt of the court.[ ]
The rule does not expressly provide for the imposition of any other type of sanction if (as is the ease here) the deponent is found not to be in contempt. The sanctions available under subsection (b)(2) of the rule are limited in their application to the parties or their agents. The petitioner argues that in the absence of a finding of contempt, the rule does not authorize any sanctions against a nonparty deponent. Our research did not reveal any Florida case that interprets subsection (b)(1) of the rule.
In Florida Physicians Insurance Reciprocal v. Balitan, 436 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), which admittedly dealt with a different subsection of rule 1.380(b), this court concluded that trial courts are limited to imposing those sanctions that are expressly provided for in the rule. Under this rationale, the sole sanction available for a nonparty deponent's failure to obey an order compelling his deposition is contempt. This result is compatible with M.S.S. v. DeMaio, 503 So.2d 1384, 1386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal quashed an order that dismissed a minor's complaint (a subsection (b)(2) sanction) due to her nonparty parent's refusal to answer certain questions during their depositions. The court cautioned that the only sanction available was to find the parents in contempt under rule 1.380(b)(1).
Because the order below does not comply with the terms of rule 1.380(b)(1), insofar as it imposes a sanction on a nonparty after refusing to find that nonparty in contempt, it constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law and must be quashed on certiorari review. In re Eisenberg, 466 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (probate rules); State v. Battle, 302 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (rules of criminal procedure).
DELL, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
FARMER, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. Even if the issue was not yet ripe when the petition was filed, that defect was cured when the trial court entered the order setting the amount of the award. The situation is analogous to that encountered in Dobrick v. Discovery Cruises, Inc., 581 So.2d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), where this court held that instead of dismissing as premature appeals from orders granting motions to dismiss, the appellants would be allowed to seek an appealable order of dismissal. But in this case, no action by this court was required, the defect was cured prior to issuance of the show cause order.
. The petitioner was ordered to resubmit to deposition and to answer all questions posed. His failure to appear for this re-deposition was the basis for the sanctions imposed in the order under review.
.The Committee Notes to rule 1.380 state that the rule was derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which contains the same distinctions between "deponents" and "parties" in its sanction provisions. In Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 531 (9th Cir.1983), the court explained that the contempt provisions of rule 37(b)(1), the equivalent of Florida's rule 1.380(b)(1), was the only sanction against a non-party deponent that was available to the court.