Westerbeke Corporation v. Atherton
224 So. 3d 816
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May 2009 a boat exploded in Tampa Bay; multiple passengers were injured and three related personal-injury/products-liability suits followed and were consolidated for discovery.
- Westerbeke manufactured the boat's gas generator; respondents allege an internal short in the generator stator caused sparking and the explosion; Westerbeke agrees there was a short but disputes timing and causation.
- Westerbeke moved to compel destructive testing — "unwinding" the stator — to inspect for burning/charring evidence that would show a spark occurred while the generator was powered.
- Respondents opposed unwinding as nonprobative and prejudicial because it would destroy demonstrative evidence they intended to present at trial and might affect the other consolidated cases differently.
- The trial court denied the motion, conditioning relief on collateral-estoppel-type agreements (e.g., having Westerbeke be bound by the liability finding in the first trial), and entered an unelaborated order denying unwinding.
- Westerbeke petitioned for certiorari, arguing the denial eviscerated its defense because unwinding was the only meaningful way to test whether sparking evidence existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of destructive testing departed from essential requirements of law | Westerbeke: denial eviscerates defense; unwinding is necessary, relevant, and the only way to test for spark evidence | Respondents: unwinding nonprobative (a spark may leave no trace) and would destroy demonstrative evidence, prejudicing trials | Court: Trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by applying wrong legal standard; certiorari granted and order quashed |
| Whether collateral estoppel justified denying unwinding | N/A (Westerbeke sought testing in all cases) | Trial court/respondents: granting unwinding could differently affect cases set for trial at different times; requested binding agreements to avoid prejudice | Court: Collateral estoppel inapplicable because no prior final judgments; trial court erred to base denial on collateral estoppel |
| Proper standard for permitting destructive testing of evidence | Westerbeke: court should apply a balancing standard (reasonable/necessary/relevant; prejudice; alternatives; safeguards) akin to Mirchandani factors | Respondents: argued movant failed to meet such factors and unwinding not probative; trial court focused on scheduling and prejudice to other cases | Court: Trial court failed to apply appropriate discovery standards and should assess relevance, necessity, prejudice, alternatives, and safeguards on remand |
| Availability of certiorari review for pretrial discovery denial | Westerbeke: denial effectively eviscerates defense and is not remediable on appeal | Respondents: discovery denials typically reviewable on appeal and remediable | Court: Certiorari appropriate where denial would effectively eviscerate a claim/defense and harm is not remediable on appeal; granted here because defense risked being eviscerated |
Key Cases Cited
- Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem'l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (certiorari standard for pretrial discovery orders that eviscerate a claim or defense)
- City of Oldsmar v. State, 790 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2001) (collateral estoppel requires a prior final adjudication)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995) (scope of discoverable evidence under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280)
- Nucci v. Nucci, 987 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (failure to apply correct legal standard constitutes departure from essential requirements of law)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2003) (definition of "clearly established law" for certiorari review)