Case Name: James CALDERBANK and Thomas A. Bustin, Appellants, v. Gabriel CAZARES and Margaret Cazares, his wife, and the Church of Scientology of California, a California corporation, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-07-28
Citations: 435 So. 2d 377
Docket Number: No. 82-594
Parties: James CALDERBANK and Thomas A. Bustin, Appellants, v. Gabriel CAZARES and Margaret Cazares, his wife, and the Church of Scientology of California, a California corporation, et al., Appellees.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 435
Pages: 377–381

Head Matter:
James CALDERBANK and Thomas A. Bustin, Appellants, v. Gabriel CAZARES and Margaret Cazares, his wife, and the Church of Scientology of California, a California corporation, et al., Appellees.
No. 82-594.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
July 28, 1983.
Frank X. Kowalski, Clearwater, for appellants.
Dan R. Warren, Daytona Beach, for ap-pellees Cazares.
J. Michael Hayes of Johnson, Paniello & Hayes, Tampa, for appellee The Church of Scientology of California, Inc.

Opinion:
COWART, Judge.
This is an appeal by a witness, James Calderbank, and his attorney, Thomas A. Bustin, from an order compelling Cal-derbank to answer certain questions asked by appellee, Church of Scientology, and ordering the witness "and/or" his attorney to pay attorney's fees.
The suit in which Calderbank's deposition was being taken is an action brought by Gabriel Cazares and wife against the appel-lee Church of Scientology for malicious prosecution, abuse of process and invasion of privacy. These causes of action in turn relate to a prior action filed in 1976 in federal court by the Church of Scientology against Gabriel Cazares and eventually dis missed. Mr. Calderbank's deposition in this action was taken on March 2,1982, and the issue in this case is whether certain questions propounded to Mr. Calderbank were "relevant to the subject matter of the pending action" and "if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1).
Calderbank was asked a series of questions concerning himself and Cazares. He was asked whether he or Cazares were "involved with an organization that is raising money or funds for the Scientology Victims Defense Fund." He was asked whether he or others were then "involved in any efforts to oust or evict the Church of Scientology from the city of Clearwater." And he was asked specifically whether he had gone to Boston to discuss, with attorney Michael Flynn, the Scientology Victims Defense Fund.
As a defense in the pending Cazares action, appellee Church of Scientology was undertaking to prove that its 1976 action against Cazares was not groundless and hence not malicious. Appellee-church argued below that to show this it needed evidence relating to Cazares' intent or hostility towards the church in 1976 and, although Calderbank did not even know Ca-zares until 1979, Calderbank "might" have information relating to Cazares' intent in 1976. It would appear to us that the issue was not Cazares' malicious intent or hostility towards the church in 1976 but the church's malicious intent or hostility towards Cazares in 1976. The church seeks to prove that its 1976 suit against Cazares was not groundless or malicious. Even assuming that Cazares' attitude or malice towards the church is relevant, there is absolutely nothing in the pleadings, the trial court order or in appellee's argument that demonstrates how the information sought was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the pending Cazares action.
A reasonably "calculated" causal connection between the information sought and the possible evidence relevant to the issues in the pending action must "appear" from the nature of both or it must be demonstrated by the person seeking the discovery. If a logical connection is not readily apparent, the questioner should make it apparent by pointing out to the court his reasoning process based on facts and inferences demonstrating how he calculates that the sought information will "reasonably" lead to admissible evidence. The mere fact that an inquiry that appears to be irrelevant "might" lead to evidence that is relevant and admissible to the issues in the pending suit is not sufficient. Such a rule would place no limitation on the authority of any litigant to invade, by questions, the privacy of a witness. Since a civil witness subpoena and the threat of contempt is, of course, state action, in Florida relevancy in discovery now has a limitation of constitutional dimensions. Since it is not "apparent" how the information sought in this case is "reasonably calculated" to lead to admissible evidence on the issues in the pending litigation the order compelling discovery is
QUASHED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., concurs specially with opinion.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.
. The underlying action of Cazares v. The Church of Scientology of California is pending in the circuit court of Volusia County, Florida. The non-party witness Calderbank was set for deposition in St. Petersburg in Pinellas County, Florida. When the witness questioned his duty to answer some questions at his deposition, the deposing party filed a motion to compel in the circuit court of Volusia County, Florida. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(1) provides, "An application for an order to a deponent who is not a party shall be made to the circuit court where the deposition is being taken." No objection as to venue was raised at the hearing on the motion to compel in the circuit court of Volusia County and that point was, therefore, waived. The circuit court of Volusia County had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, i.e., the motion to compel discovery. However, the provision of the rule for an order to compel a non-party witness by action in the circuit court where the deposition is taken characterizes the circuit court action in such an instance as a judicial proceeding separate and distinct from the underlying law action and the order of the court in such proceeding, as here, constitutes a final order of a trial court which this court has jurisdiction to review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A), although under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) this court could also have treated this appeal as a petition for certiorari, see Affiliated of Florida, Inc. v. U-Need Sundries, Inc., 397 So.2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Everglades Protective Syndicate, Inc. v. Makinney, 391 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Dade County Medical Association v. Hlis, 372 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
. See Church of Scientology of California, Inc. v. Cazares, 638 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir.1981).
. I.e., Calderbank's or Cazares' possible involvement in 1982 with Michael Flynn or the Scientology Victims Defense Fund or efforts to "oust or evict the Church of Scientology from Clearwater"
. An excellent example of an analysis of inferences and natural presumptions as they relate to relevancy is contained in Morgan, Basic Problems in Evidence, 185-87 (1963).
. Art. I, § 23 Fla. Const. (1980). See Cope, A Quick Look at Florida's New Right of Privacy, 55 Fla.B.J. 12 (1981).