Court Opinion

ID: 9892914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 15:04:58.684497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:32.687761
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed October 25, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D22-585
                       Lower Tribunal No. 18-34772
                          ________________

               Costco Wholesale Corporation, etc.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                             Janetth Vargas,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice
Butchko, Judge.

      Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, and David Cooney (Fort Lauderdale),
for appellant.

      Fischer Redavid PLLC, and Terry P. Roberts (Hollywood), for
appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.

     LOGUE, C.J.
      Costco Wholesale Corporation appeals two trial court orders awarding

plaintiff Janetth Vargas attorney’s fees and costs. The first order was entered

after Costco failed to comply with an earlier order to provide better responses

to Vargas’ interrogatories. The second order was entered because of the

conduct of Costco’s attorney and corporate representative at a deposition.

Costco argues the trial court abused its discretion in entering these orders.

For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

                                 Background

      In 2018, Vargas sued Costco for negligence. She alleged that on

September 23, 2017, she fell on a slippery surface at a Costco store located

at 7795 West Flagler Street, causing her personal injuries.

      A. Interrogatory Dispute

      During discovery, Vargas issued an interrogatory to Costco relating to

the condition of the location where Vargas fell. Costco objected. Vargas

moved to compel. The trial court overruled Costco’s objection. Costco then

answered the interrogatory by stating, “See objection previously filed.”

      Vargas moved to compel again and sought attorney’s fees. In

response, Costco filed the affidavit of a paralegal attesting that the

inadequate answer was a result of her oversight. The trial court granted

Vargas’ motion for fees against Costco “for failing to comply with the prior

                                      2
order” and awarded Vargas $675 in attorney’s fees, payable 30 days after

the expiration of Costco’s time to appeal the order.

      B. Deposition Dispute

      Also during discovery, Vargas noticed the deposition of Costco’s

corporate representative. The notice initially designated 77 separate topics,

although this number was reduced somewhat after Costco filed a protective

order. The deposition, which took place remotely, began with Vargas’

counsel asking the representative to identify the documents he had reviewed

to prepare for the deposition. Costco’s attorney instructed the representative

to refrain from disclosing anything the attorney had said or “anything that you

and I have exchanged.” The representative testified that the only document

he had reviewed was one of the trial court’s orders.

      Vargas’ counsel then asked the representative to provide the “factual

basis for the affirmative defense that the plaintiff was the sole legal cause of

her injuries.” The witness began answering the question by reading from a

document. When Vargas’ counsel interrupted to ask about the document, the

witness testified the document had been prepared by Costco’s attorney and

emailed to him earlier that morning. The document had not been previously

identified. It was then marked as an exhibit. The witness testified that he

                                       3
intended to answer at least certain questions by simply reading from the

document.

         He was then asked again to provide the factual basis for one of the

affirmative defenses; he answered by reading from the document; and

Costco’s attorney interjected to state that the witness had read the wrong

answer. Vargas’ attorney ultimately terminated the deposition and brought

the dispute before the trial court. Vargas sought an award of fees and costs

against Costco for the expenses associated with having to cancel the

deposition and obtaining the trial court’s intervention in the dispute.

         In response, Costco maintained that it provided the pre-written

answers to the representative, in part, because the document tracked

Costco’s answers to its interrogatories and it “wouldn’t expect the corporate

representative to say something different than what the corporation already

said.”

         The trial court ultimately imposed attorney’s fees and costs against

Costco in the amount of $4,785.90, payable 30 days after the expiration of

Costco’s time to appeal the order.

                                       4
                                   Analysis

      A. Jurisdiction

      We have jurisdiction because the orders are final. Fla. R. App. P.

9.030(b)(1)(a). The orders concern a collateral discovery issue and

misconduct, and they order a specific amount of money be paid by a date

certain. See Saye v. Pieschacon, 750 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)

(“The appeal, insofar as it is from the order awarding attorney's fees and

costs, can proceed, however, despite the lack of a final judgment on the

issue of liability because the order awarding attorney's fees and costs

appears to be a final judgment which is independently appealable.”).

      B. Standard of Review

      This Court reviews the imposition of fees and costs for failure to comply

with an order compelling discovery and for misconduct for abuse of

discretion. Roco Tobacco (USA), Inc. v. Fla. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages,

934 So. 2d 479, 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Cohen,

340 So. 3d 498, 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). “Reviewing courts apply a

‘reasonableness test’ to determine if the trial court has abused its discretion,

which provides that if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of

the trial court's action, the action is not unreasonable, and no abuse of

discretion has occurred.” Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004).

                                       5
      C. Interrogatory Dispute

      Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b)(2) states that upon failing to

comply with a trial court order compelling discovery, the trial court:

        shall require the party failing to obey the order to pay the
        reasonable expenses caused by the failure, which may
        include attorneys' fees, unless the court finds that the failure
        was substantially justified or that other circumstances make
        an award of expenses unjust.

(emphasis added).

      After being ordered to provide Vargas with better answers, Costco

simply renewed its prior objection that had already been overruled. Costco

explains this action as the error of a paralegal rather than the attorney who

submitted the answers. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court

declining to accept this explanation. Without belaboring all its problems, we

note that Costco does not contest that the attorney’s fees at issue were

incurred because of Costco’s failure to obey the trial court’s order. See

Herold v. Comput. Components Int’l, Inc., 252 So. 2d 576, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA

1971) (“In the case where a party refuses to answer, a mere failure to comply

with an order of the court compelling an answer may result in sanctions under

Rule 1.380 and no willful disregard or deliberate intent to disobey is required

to be shown.”).

                                       6
     D. Deposition Dispute

     Costco argues that a corporate representative should be allowed to

have a document with relevant information on him or her as the

representative may not have personal knowledge of each designation topic.

Indeed, a corporate representative does not need to have personal

knowledge of the information requested. Sybac Solar, GMBH v. 6th St. Solar

Energy Park of Gainesville, LLC, 217 So. 3d 1068, 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

But there are two problems here: (1) the document that the witness intended

to consult during the deposition (indeed to read from) was not disclosed

when opposing counsel asked for such documents; and (2) Costco’s

attorney coached the representative during the opposing counsel’s

examination to provide only the answers the lawyer had written down for him.

See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Morales, 237 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA

2017) (holding the trial court did not depart from essential requirements of

law when it entered sanctions for coaching a witness during the other

attorney’s examination). See also Florida Bar v. James, 329 So. 3d 108 (Fla.

2021) (sanctioning an attorney who texted a witness instructions on how to

answer questions during a remote deposition).

     These problems are in no way justified by Costco’s desire to ensure its

representative’s answers stayed consistent with Costco’s answers to

                                     7
interrogatories. To the contrary, exploring such inconsistencies is one

function of a deposition.

      For these reasons, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing fees and costs against Costco for the conduct of its

representative and attorney at the corporate representative’s deposition.

      Affirmed.

                                     8