RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Sewell
150 So. 3d 1247
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- RaceTrac entered a real property purchase contract conditioned on governmental approvals to construct a median cut on Campbell Drive for direct access to the gas station.
- In 1999 RaceTrac obtained the necessary approvals and closed on the property; the subject gas station began operating later.
- In 2010 Sewell, as legal guardian of Crystal Sewell, filed a suit arising from a 2007 car accident near the gas station, alleging RaceTrac negligence related to signage and traffic control.
- Sewell served rule 1.310(b)(6) notices seeking deposition of RaceTrac’s corporate representatives with knowledge of site selection and related issues.
- RaceTrac identified Lesliegh Batchelor as the appropriate corporate representative; Batchelor testified about earlier site selection by Hunter, Lenker, and Bolch.
- Sewell sought depositions of Hunter, Lenker, and Bolch; RaceTrac resisted, arguing Batchelor’s designation non-exclusively encompassed the topic.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 1.310(b)(6) depositions | Batchelor suffices; others with same knowledge may be deposed. | Designee controls scope; other officers not necessary. | Rule 1.310(b)(6) allows additional depositions; not exclusive. |
| Court’s handling of potentially cumulative depositions | Additional depositions are permissible where knowledge is shared. | Limit to protect corporate operations and avoid burden. | Trial court may limit depositions but did not depart from law. |
| Certiorari standard for discovery orders | Order deviated from essential requirements and caused injury. | No departure or miscarriage of justice. | Petition denied; no misstep in essential legal standards. |
| Apex/apex-like considerations | Upper-level officers may possess necessary knowledge. | Florida has not adopted apex doctrine. | Court relies on rule 1.310(b)(6) and protective order framework; no apex doctrine applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. American Education Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012) (certiorari review standard for discovery orders)
- Nestor v. Posner-Gerstenhaber, 857 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (trial courts have broad discretion in discovery matters)
- Plantation-Simon Inc. v. Bahloul, 596 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (trial court discretion to alleviate burden from seriatim depositions)
- In re Florida Bar: Rules of Civil Procedure, 265 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1972) (Committee Note on amendment aligning with Rule 30(b)(6))
- Carriage Hills Condo., Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors, Inc., 109 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (1.310(b)(6) does not require the 'most knowledge' witness)
- Logitech Cargo, U.S.A., Corp. v. JW Perry, Inc., 817 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (distinguishes between notices and subpoenas under 1.310(b)(6))