CMI, Inc. v. Ulloa
73 So. 3d 787
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- CMI, Inc., a Kentucky corporation, is the registered agent for service of process in Florida and was subpoenaed in a criminal DUI context for production of source code related to the Intoxilyzer 8000.
- The subpoenas were duces tecum issued by Seminole County prosecutors and demanded only documents, not witness testimony.
- CMI filed motions to quash the subpoenas; the county court denied the motions.
- CMI petitioned for writ of certiorari in the circuit court, arguing the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without the State in Criminal Proceedings (Uniform Law) governs out-of-state witnesses and documents and was improperly bypassed.
- The circuit court denied certiorari as to Respondents, holding the Uniform Law did not apply because no witness testimony was sought.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted certiorari, quashed the circuit court’s order denying certiorari, and certified conflict with Landrum and General Motors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Uniform Law apply to subpoenas for document production from an out-of-state corporation? | CMI argues Uniform Law applies to out-of-state witnesses and documents, so production requests require procedure under the Uniform Law. | Respondents contend Uniform Law applies only to witnesses outside Florida and not to documents alone when the subpoena is directed to a Florida-registered, doing-business foreign corporation. | Uniform Law applies to out-of-state documents; certificate granted. |
| May Florida courts compel production from a foreign corporation via a Florida registered agent when not seeking testimony? | Jurisdiction via the registered agent should not expand Florida subpoena power to non-parties for document production alone. | If documents are material and within Florida's reach through the agent, process may proceed under Uniform Law. | Quash circuit order; recognize Uniform Law applicability to documents; certiorari granted. |
| Was second-tier certiorari appropriate to review the circuit court decision? | The circuit court’s reliance on precedent from another district conflicted with clearly established statutory law; second-tier review is appropriate. | Reliance on other district precedent is permissible; limited second-tier relief ordinarily not warranted. | Yes; certiorari granted and circuit order quashed for conflict with controlling authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- General Motors Corp. v. State, 357 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (Uniform Law inapplicable to document-only subpoenas to Florida-registered foreign corporations)
- Landrum v. CMI, 64 So.3d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (subpoena for documents only; circuit court followed GM; petition denied)
- Yeary v. State, 289 Ga. 394, 711 S.E.2d 694 (Ga. 2011) (Uniform Law applies to out-of-state witnesses and documents; out-of-state corporation may be material witness)
- Department of Highway Safety v. Nader, 4 So.3d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (precedent permitting certiorari when circuit order conflicts with statute; limits of Uniform Law)
- State v. Bastos, 985 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (Uniform Law concerns attendance of out-of-state witnesses)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. OKC Ltd. P'ship, 634 So.2d 1186 (La. 1994) (out-of-state subpoena power limitations for non-parties)