Florida Highway Patrol v. Bejarano
137 So. 3d 619
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Jorge Bejarano sued the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) after being struck by an FHP vehicle in Okaloosa County while he was an active-duty Marine stationed nearby.
- After filing suit in Florida, Bejarano was transferred involuntarily to Camp Pendleton, California (about 2,050 miles away).
- FHP noticed an in-person deposition in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Bejarano moved for a protective order to appear by video conference, offering to arrange and pay for it.
- The trial court granted the protective order under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c), citing distance, Bejarano’s military service/transfer, and his offer to pay; the court reserved authority to invalidate the video deposition if quality or other issues arose and to require an in-person deposition later if needed.
- FHP petitioned this court for certiorari, arguing the order departs from law and causes irreparable harm by allowing an out-of-forum deposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protective order allowing a video deposition departs from law under Rule 1.280(c) | Bejarano: video deposition is reasonable given distance, involuntary military transfer, and willingness to pay | FHP: plaintiff who sued in Florida must appear for deposition in forum; video order improperly shifts burden and departs from precedent | Court: order is within trial court discretion under Rule 1.280(c); no departure from essential requirements of law |
| Whether the protective order causes irreparable (material) harm warranting certiorari relief | Bejarano: no irreparable harm because court retained power to require in-person deposition or invalidate video if inadequate | FHP: inability to examine plaintiff in-person and potential inability to remedy prejudice on appeal | Court: no irreparable harm shown — no one was ordered to travel, and court reserved authority to remedy problems |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by considering military transfer and willingness to pay | Bejarano: transfer was involuntary and burdensome; paying shows accommodation is reasonable | FHP: transfer evidence allegedly not preserved; travel burden not sufficiently prohibitive | Court: factors were cognizable; FHP failed to preserve challenge to voluntariness; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court’s reservation to revisit the method of deposition renders the order improper | Bejarano: reservation protects parties and preserves remedies | FHP: reservation insufficient to cure the fundamental error of allowing out-of-forum deposition | Court: reservation supports finding that any problems can be remedied; reinforces lack of irreparable harm |
Key Cases Cited
- CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour, 109 So.3d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (certiorari standard for deposition-location orders and irreparable-harm requirement)
- Logitech Cargo, U.S.A., Corp. v. JW Perry, Inc., 817 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (recognizing discretion to order telephone or video deposition for out-of-state parties)
- Ormond Beach First Nat’l Bank v. J.M. Montgomery Roofing Co., 189 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966) (quashing order requiring travel outside forum for depositions)
- Brown v. Brown, 500 So.2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (forum deposition requirement and limits on accommodation)
- Waite v. Wellington Boats, Inc., 459 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (trial courts have broad discretion under Rule 1.280 to manage discovery)
- Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., L.L.C., 99 So.3d 450 (Fla. 2012) (defining material injury for irreparable-harm analysis)