CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour
109 So. 3d 1232
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Claimant was injured August 15, 2011 in Palm Coast, Flagler County, Florida.
- PFB for temporary indemnity benefits, wage calculation, and impairment benefits filed July 20, 2012; venue in Daytona Beach District for Flagler County claims.
- October 3, 2012, claimant served deposition duces tecum on Servicing Agent’s adjuster, set in Palm Coast.
- October 11, 2012, E/SA amended motion for protective order to quash deposition notice; argued adjuster should not travel to Palm Coast.
- October 13, 2012, JCC denied the amended motion for protective order without a hearing, ruling deposition in the venue county was appropriate.
- Petition for writ of certiorari granted; order quashed; court held JCC departed from essential requirements of law by ordering deposition in an improper county.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deposition in Palm Coast violated essential law requirements. | Claimant argues Flagler County proper for injury and business location. | E/SA argues deposition should be where its principal place of business is (Orange County) and not impose undue travel. | Yes; JCC departed from essential requirements of law. |
| Is certiorari the proper remedy to review a discovery-order location dispute? | Petitioners contend certiorari is proper to review erroneous deposition location. | Respondent argues standard discovery procedures apply; certiorari appropriate for location error. | Yes; certiorari is proper remedy. |
| Should the case be considered moot or decided on the merits given potential collateral consequences? | Claimant alleges potential sanctions and continued effects from deposition timing. | Respondent argues deposition set in proper county after certiorari; mootness concerns exist. | Court decided on the merits to resolve substantial questions despite mootness concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So.2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (defendant depose in principal place of business when no affirmative relief is sought)
- Donahoo v. Matthews, 660 So.2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (defendant not required to travel for deposition absent affirmative relief)
- Espana v. Redneris, 661 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (defendant not required to travel absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Ormond Beach First National Bank v. J.M. Montgomery Roofing Co., 189 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (distinguishable; deposition of plaintiff’s officers, not defendant)
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (certiorari review available for non-final discovery orders)