Case Name: PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. Zarkia T. FRAZIER, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-07-30
Citations: 696 So. 2d 1369
Docket Number: No. 97-0993
Parties: PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. Zarkia T. FRAZIER, Respondent.
Judges: SHAHOOD, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 696
Pages: 1369–1372

Head Matter:
PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. Zarkia T. FRAZIER, Respondent.
No. 97-0993.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 30, 1997.
Dennis M. O’Hara and Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A., for petitioner.
Darryl L. Lewis of Hutchinson & Lewis, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.

Opinion:
WARNER, Judge.
After suffering an accident while operating a forklift owned by the petitioner Publix Supermarkets, respondent, without commencing a cause of action against Publix or the maker of the forklift, filed a "Verified Ex Parte Emergency Petition to Preserve Evidence." Based on that petition alone, the trial court entered an order requiring Publix to preserve the forklift and to allow respondent to examine and inspect both the forklift and any documents Publix maintained regarding the forklift. We hold that the petition was not authorized under any rule of procedure nor was it sufficient as a true bill of discovery. We therefore grant the writ.
The entered order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, because it is not based on any recognized Florida procedure. While Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.290 provides for the preservation of testimony prior to suit, it may not be used as a general means of obtaining presuit discovery. See Home Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 648 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The rule does not include in its terms any requests to preserve physical property.
Respondent concedes the inapplicability of Rule 1.290. Instead, he claims that the verified petition was a pure bill of discovery. A pure bill of discovery "lies to obtain the disclosure of facts within the defendant's knowledge, or deeds or writings or other things in his custody, in aid of the prosecu tion or defense of an action pending or about to be commenced in some other court." First Nat'l Bank of Miami v. Dade-Broward Co., 125 Fla. 594, 171 So. 510, 510-11 (1936). A bill of discovery should show:
the matters concerning which the discovery asked for is sought, the interests of the several parties in the subject of the inquiry, the complainant's right to have the relief prayed, its title and interest, and what the relationship of same is to the discovery claimed, and that the discovery so attempted to be had is material to the complainant's rights that have been duly brought into litigation on the common-law side of the court under circumstances that entitle the complainant to a disclosure of what is necessary to maintain its own claim in that litigation, and not that of the defendant in the case.
171 So. at 511. In the instant case, no such allegations were made. The respondent simply wanted to preserve the forklift to see if it was defective and could have contributed to the accident. In other words, the respondent was trying to determine if he had any cause of action. That is not the purpose of a pure bill of discovery. It is not to be used as a fishing expedition to see if causes of action exist.
We distinguish Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Hegwood, 569 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), in which the fifth district permitted a pure bill of discovery to depose medical witnesses regarding the care and treatment of a medical patient. The depositions were necessary in order to determine whether the respondent could obtain a medical expert opinion concluding that medical malpractice had occurred, a statutory prerequisite to filing the suit. Because the statutorily authorized means of discovery had not permitted the respondent to obtain statements of what happened during the patient's treatment, the court concluded that equity and justice required discovery to proceed. Otherwise, the respondent would lose her cause of action. No such result would occur in the instant ease. The respondent is not precluded from filing a complaint against Publix or the forklift manufacturer. The same impediments to suit in a malpractice action are not present here.
For these reasons, we grant the writ and vacate the order of the trial court. We do not address the remaining issues raised.
SHAHOOD, J., concurs.
STEVENSON, J., concurs specially with opinion.