Metropcs Communications, Inc. v. Porter
225 So. 3d 843
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- MetroPCS appealed denial of its motion to compel arbitration; this court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether an arbitration clause was in a binding agreement.
- The appellate mandate (May 31, 2013) directed the trial court to determine the threshold issue at a limited evidentiary hearing.
- On remand, Porter noticed a corporate-rep deposition with 21 "Areas of Inquiry;" MetroPCS moved for a protective order to block 11 areas as beyond the limited scope prescribed by the mandate.
- The trial court denied the protective order, allowing broad deposition questioning "relating to the case that is filed."
- The district court held the trial court’s denial conflicted with the appellate mandate and that discovery must be limited to the threshold issue (whether the arbitration clause is in a binding agreement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Porter) | Defendant's Argument (MetroPCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery on multiple topics at the corporate deposition exceeds the scope of the appellate mandate | Deposition may cover broad topics "relating to the case that is filed," including Areas 8–10 | Discovery must be limited to topics relevant to the single threshold issue directed by the mandate | Court quashed the order denying protective order and limited discovery to the threshold issue |
| Whether the trial court must follow the district court's mandate precisely | Trial court implied it could allow normal, case-wide discovery despite the mandate | Mandate is binding; lower courts cannot modify or evade it | Lower court must comply strictly with the appellate mandate |
| Whether expansive discovery would undermine arbitration policy (speed/effectiveness) | Implied argument for full discovery before threshold determination | Allowing full discovery defeats arbitration’s purpose of speedy enforcement | Court found broad discovery would undermine arbitration and restricted discovery scope |
| Whether Porter preserved arguments on all contested Areas of Inquiry | Porter argued only for Areas 8–10 in response to motion to enforce mandate | MetroPCS argued all 11 Areas were beyond scope | Court noted Porter abandoned contention as to remaining Areas; protective order should have been granted for all 11 contested Areas |
Key Cases Cited
- Posner v. Posner, 257 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1972) (appellate courts have authority to enforce their mandates)
- Wolf v. Horton, 322 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (mandate compliance required of lower tribunals)
- Brunner Enterps., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1984) (lower tribunals lack authority to modify an appellate mandate)
- Hollander v. K-Site 400 Assocs., 657 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same)
- Milton v. Keith, 503 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (same)
- Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 425 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (speedy resolution is central to arbitration policy)