Miami Dade College v. Del Pino Allen, 271 So. 3d 1194

Allen sued Miami Dade College alleging wrongful termination under the Whistleblower's Act and later amended to add college officials, including President Eduardo Padron, in their official capacities.
Allen sought a videotaped deposition of President Padron about two letters she sent and his alleged involvement in her termination; she served interrogatories on the College but none directed to Padron or about the letters.
The College moved for a protective order asserting Padron, as an agency head, should not be deposed absent exhaustion of other discovery and a showing that his testimony was uniquely necessary.
The trial court denied the protective order, finding Padron had particularized first‑hand knowledge and Allen was entitled to question him about receipt of the letters and termination circumstances; the court made that ruling without an evidentiary hearing.
The College petitioned for certiorari, arguing the court failed to make required findings that Allen exhausted other discovery tools and that Padron’s testimony was necessary and unavailable from others.
The district court granted certiorari, quashed the order, and held the trial court departed from essential requirements of law because exhaustion and uniqueness findings were absent and the record showed Allen had not exhausted other discovery and conceded some information was available from other witnesses.

Issue	Allen's Argument	College's Argument	Held
Whether an agency head (Padron) may be deposed without the requesting party first exhausting other discovery tools	Allen contended she had completed discovery and was entitled to depose Padron	College argued Allen failed to exhaust discovery directed to Padron (no interrogatories, RFPs, or targeted depositions)	Court: Deposition improper absent a finding that other discovery was exhausted; Allen did not meet exhaustion requirement
Whether Padron’s testimony was necessary and unavailable from other sources	Allen argued Padron had particularized first‑hand knowledge about the letters and termination	College asserted information was available from other witnesses and Allen conceded some information was obtainable elsewhere	Court: Trial court failed to find necessity/uniqueness; record showed some information was available from other witnesses, so deposition was not justified

Miami-Dade Cty. v. Dade Cty. Police Benev. Ass'n, 103 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (irreparable harm and certiorari jurisdiction for wrongful discovery orders involving agency heads)
Fla. Office of Ins. Regulation v. Fla. Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 159 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (two‑pronged test for deposing an agency head: exhaustion of other discovery and necessity/uniqueness)
Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Broward Cty., 810 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (agency head should not be deposed unless other discovery is exhausted and head is uniquely able to provide information)
Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. Atl. Hosp. of Fla., LLC, 57 So. 3d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (recognizing limited application of apex doctrine to senior state officers)
Siegle v. Lee Cty., 198 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (circuit court departure from essential requirements when failing to follow binding precedent on discovery limits)
Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992) (district court decisions bind Florida trial courts absent interdistrict conflict)