Case Name: CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Appellant/Petitioner, v. Kathy Drury PUMPHREY, Appellee/Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-08-23
Citations: 622 So. 2d 1164
Docket Number: No. 93-1040
Parties: CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Appellant/Petitioner, v. Kathy Drury PUMPHREY, Appellee/Respondent.
Judges: BOOTH, SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 622
Pages: 1164–1165

Head Matter:
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Appellant/Petitioner, v. Kathy Drury PUMPHREY, Appellee/Respondent.
No. 93-1040.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 23, 1993.
Gregory A. Anderson and Paula N. Lamb, Jacksonville, for appellant/petitioner.
Thomas S. Edwards, Jr. of Peek & Cobb, Jacksonville, for appellee/respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Chrysler Corporation petitions this court for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order denying Chrysler's motion for a protective order, or, in the alternative, striking the request by Kathy Drury Pumphrey, plaintiff below, for the production of certain documents. By this motion, Chrysler sought to prevent discovery into its financial records after a ruling by the trial court reinstating Pumphrey's punitive damages claim. We are guided in the instant case by the views of the court expressed in Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987), finding certiorari inappropriate for review of orders relating to discovery on punitive damages claims. We also note in the case before us the lower court's ruling, on Pumphrey's motion for reinstatement of her punitive damages claim, that a review of the applicable evidence supported a claim for punitive damages. See, § 768.-72, Fla.Stat. (1989).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is DENIED.
BOOTH, SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.