Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Bermudez
92 So. 3d 232
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Miccosukee Tribe seeks certiorari to review denial of protective order and subpoena quash in post-judgment discovery over tribal officer and general counsel Bernado Roman III.
- Judgment against Miccosukee Tribe members Tammy Billie and Jimmie Bert arising from a 2009 wrongful death/personal injury suit; substantial post-judgment motions and sanctions occurred.
- Trial court sanctioned Lewis Tein, PL, for discovery abuse; later, the Tribe allegedly paid Tein’s fees, contradicting Roman’s statements claimed by plaintiffs.
- Roman provided checks showing Tribe funds paid to Lewis Tein; Tein asserts the Tribe paid fees, while former tribal officials testified funds were paid by Billie and Bert or charged against their distributions.
- Court addresses whether tribal sovereign immunity bars deposition and whether there was a clear waiver by the Tribe’s conduct, allowing deposition of Roman on payments and related topics.
- The court ultimately denies the petition for writ of certiorari, holding there was a clear, explicit waiver of tribal immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does tribal immunity bar deposition about who paid defense fees? | Roman argues immunity protects the Tribe from such discovery. | Tribe waived immunity by participating in litigation and directing payment of fees. | Waiver exists; immunity not a bar |
| Is Knox v. Interior applicable to limit deposition on extra-record tribal actions? | Knox limits depositions of tribal officials when not about tribe policies. | Roman acted with Tribe's blessing; not extra-record activity; immunity waived. | Knox inapplicable; waiver shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1978) (tribal immunity modest protections; individual capacity lacks immunity)
- United States v. James, 980 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1992) (tribal sovereignty and immunity considerations in federal context)
- Napoleoni v. Miccosukee Tribe, 890 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (fact-specific immunity analysis; distinguishes earlier cases)
- Cypress v. Tamiami Partners, Ltd., 662 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quashed depositions of tribe officials; tribal sovereignty in play)
- First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (discovery abuse sanctions and improper delaying tactics)
- Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So.2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (discovery abuse and timing considerations)
- Somberg v. Convalescent Ctrs., 840 So.2d 998 (Fla. 2003) (discovery and immunity-related considerations in Florida context)