Suzuki Motor Corporation, a foreign corporation vs Scott Winckler

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D18-4815 _____________________________ SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. SCOTT WINCKLER, Respondent. _____________________________ Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction. November 22, 2019 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND CERTIFICATION PER CURIAM. Petitioner’s motions for rehearing en banc and for certification of conflict are denied. However, the panel grants its motion for certified question. We rephrase the question proposed by petitioner and certify the following question as one of great public importance: DOES A TRIAL COURT DEPART FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW BY NOT REQUIRING A PARTY SEEKING TO DEPOSE THE TOP OFFICER OF A CORPORATION TO SHOW THAT (1) OTHER MEANS OF DISCOVERY HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED AND (2) THE CORPORATE OFFICER IS UNIQUELY ABLE TO PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION THAT CANNOT BE OBTAINED FROM OTHER SOURCES? STATED DIFFERENTLY, DOES A DEPARTURE FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF LAW OCCUR WHEN THE SO-CALLED APEX DOCTRINE, WHICH APPLIES TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, SEE, E.G., FLA. OFFICE OF INS. REGULATION V. FLA. DEP’T OF FIN. SERVS., 159 SO. 3D 945, 950 (FLA. 1ST DCA 2015), IS NOT APPLIED TO A CORPORATION? B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Raoul G. Cantero of White & Case LLP, Miami, and Larry M. Roth of Larry M. Roth, P.A., Winter Park, for Petitioner. Maegen Peek Luka and Celene H. Humphries of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, for Respondent. 2

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.