Root ex rel. Root v. Balfour Beatty Construction LLC
132 So. 3d 867
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Root seeks certiorari review of a circuit court discovery order requiring production of her Facebook postings.
- Root sued the City of Cape Coral, a construction contractor, and subcontractors for their alleged negligence after her three-year-old son Gage was struck near a construction site.
- Root alleged the site was not reasonably safe for pedestrians and asserted derivative claims for loss of parental consortium.
- The challenged order categorized Facebook-material to include personal relationships, mental health, substance use, and post-accident litigation histories, in addition to other already discoverable categories.
- The trial court’s order was found overbroad and intrusive; the court granted certiorari and quashed the order as to certain categories, with potential in-camera review if warranted later.
- The petition was granted; the discovery order was quashed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether categories (i) and (o)(i,ii,iii,v) are overbroad. | Root; discovery invades privacy and is not relevant. | Defendants; broad discovery is permissible and relevant to claims. | Yes; quash categories (i) and (o)(i,ii,iii,v). |
| Whether certiorari jurisdiction is proper for privacy-implicating discovery orders. | Root demonstrated irreparable privacy-related harm. | Jurisdiction may be lacking without irreparable harm shown for discovery orders. | Jurisdiction established; certiorari proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995) (irreparable harm as key factor in certiorari for discovery)
- Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (certiorari when discovery harms privacy)
- Fla. First Fin. Group, Inc. v. De Castro, 815 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (privacy rights implicated in discovery orders)
- Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So.2d 533 (Fla.1987) (privacy and scope of discovery considerations)
- Holland v. Barfield, 35 So.3d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (privacy concerns in discovery orders)
- Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Shelley, 827 So.2d 936 (Fla.2002) (protective measures and in camera review relevant to discovery)
- Russell v. Stardust Cruisers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (limits on broad discovery and need for relevancy determinations)
- United States v. Dempsey, 635 So.2d 961 (Fla.1994) (concept of relevance in discovery requests)