Opinion ID: 1621327
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Availability of Certiorari Relief

Text: We further note that Boecher, Carrera, and Adair all involved petitions for certiorari. In Boecher the Fourth District denied relief, as opposed to dismissing the petition, indicating that it had considered the merits of the petition. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (explaining the difference between denying and dismissing a petition for certiorari relief). In Carrera and Adair, certiorari relief was granted. In Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla.1987), this Court explained the applicable limits of the use of petitions for writs of certiorari to appeal an order granting discovery. We described certiorari relief as an extraordinary remedy that should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders. Id. at 1098. We observed that orders granting discovery had traditionally been reviewed by certiorari, because when discovery is wrongfully granted the complaining party is beyond relief. Id. at 1099. However, we concluded that not every erroneous discovery order creates certiorari jurisdiction in an appellate court, and focused on  irreparable harm  as the governing standard. Id. at 1099 (emphasis supplied). The Court found illustrative of this type of discovery order one that would let the cat out of the bag and provide the opponent material that could be used by an unscrupulous litigant to injure another person. Id. at 1100. More recently, in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94-95 (Fla. 1995), this Court, citing to Martin-Johnson with approval, explained that certiorari is the appropriate remedy when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, and thus causes material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. The Court echoed the holding in Martin-Johnson that not every erroneous discovery order creates certiorari jurisdiction because some orders are subject to adequate redress on appeal from the final judgment. See id. The Court disapproved contrary decisions from the appellate courts to the extent they could be interpreted as automatically equating irrelevant discovery requests with irreparable harm. Id. at 95. Although approving the Fourth District's analysis of certiorari jurisdiction, the Court also quashed the district court's decision under review to the extent that it permit[ted] discovery even when it has been affirmatively established that such discovery is neither relevant nor will lead to the discovery of relevant information. Id. Apparently, this language in Langston caused at least one appellate court to experience an increase in the number of petitions for certiorari seeking review of discovery orders. Eberhardt v. Eberhardt, 666 So.2d 1024, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Judge Klein concluded in Eberhardt that this Court's decision in Langston did not expand certiorari review in the discovery context. Id. at 1025. We agree with Judge Klein's analysis in Eberhardt and reiterate that Martin-Johnson properly sets forth the parameters for certiorari relief in pretrial discovery. In conclusion, we approve the result in Boecher and disapprove the Third District's contrary opinions in Carrera and Adair. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., and KOGAN, Senior Justice, concur. SHAW, J., and OVERTON, Senior Justice, concur in result only.