WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC. vs LISA SWEENEY, MICHAEL LANCE AND MICHAEL KELLY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D21-857 LT Case No. 2019-CA-1383 LISA SWEENEY, MICHAEL LANCE AND MICHAEL KELLY, Respondents. ________________________________/ Opinion filed October 22, 2021 Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Edward L. Scott, Judge. Michael M. Brownlee, of The Brownlee Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner. Harold S. Velez, of Farah & Farah, P.A., Orlando, for Respondent, Lisa Sweeney. Jarrod G. King, of King Law Firm, Ocala, for Respondent, Michael Lance. Daniel S. Weinger, of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Cohen, Fort Lauderdale, for Respondent, Michael Kelly. PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PETITION DISMISSED. EISNAUGLE and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur. EVANDER, J., concurring and concurring specially, with opinion. 2 EVANDER, J., concurring specially. Case No. 5D21-857 LT Case No. 2019-CA-1383 Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order compelling a better answer to a particular interrogatory. I agree that dismissal of the petition is required because petitioner has failed to establish irreparable harm. Quite simply, the interrogatory at issue does not constitute a “carte blanche” request for irrelevant discovery. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 95 (Fla. 1995) (“Although we cannot say that irrelevant materials sought in a discovery request necessarily caused irreparable harm, we cannot believe that a litigant is entitled carte blanche to irrelevant discovery.”). Petitioner unsuccessfully argued below that the subject interrogatory was overbroad and burdensome. I believe that argument was clearly meritorious. However, overbreadth is not a proper basis for certiorari review of a discovery order. See Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012). Our dismissal of the instant petition does not preclude the trial court from revisiting its order, particularly should petitioner provide the trial court with greater detail as to the costs likely to be incurred in order to comply with the discovery request. Nor does our dismissal of the petition preclude petitioner from seeking to 3 recoup costs incurred from overly burdensome discovery at the conclusion of the case. See Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197, 1200 n.5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“Of course the mere fact that a trial judge has allowed burdensome discovery to proceed does not forestall later reallocation of the costs incurred when the prevailing party seeks to tax costs at the end of the case.”). 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
