Date: 06-17-2022

Case Style:

ALACHUA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. CATHERINE BARNES

Case Number: 1D22-559

Judge:

Harvey L. Jay, III

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction

Court:

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Tallahassee, Florida Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory

Tell MoreLaw About Your Litigation Successes and MoreLaw Will Tell the World.

Re: MoreLaw National Jury Verdict and Settlement

Counselor:

MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.


MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge


Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Defendant's Attorney: Ashley N. Richardson of Marie A. Mattox, P.A.

Description:

Tallahassee, Florida - Civil Litigation lawyer represented Petitioner with seeking certiorari review in a civil action.

Barnes sued the Board for alleged violations of the Florida
Civil Rights Act and the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Board
denied Barnes’ claims, arguing that she cannot prove prima facie
cases of discrimination and retaliation. In discovery, the Board
sought the production of documents from non-parties concerning
Barnes’ healthcare and employment histories. Barnes objected,
arguing that the Board’s requests were too broad, were not
2
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, and violated her right to privacy.
In its “Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s
Notice of Production from Non-Parties,” the trial court sustained
Barnes’ objections. As to the Board’s requests for documents from
Barnes’ medical and psychiatric care providers, the trial court
ruled that it would review the responsive documents in camera. As
part of its review, the trial court would give Barnes an opportunity
to inspect the responsive documents and file a privilege log that
listed her proposed redactions. The trial court would then rule on
each proposed redaction.
As to the Board’s requests for documents from Barnes’ current
and former employers, the trial court ruled that the requests were
overbroad. The trial court ordered the Board to modify its requests
by narrowing them to Barnes’ applications for employment, job
descriptions, pay and benefit records, and time and attendance
records.
The Board now seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s
order. In its petition, the Board argues that the trial court’s order
departs from the essential requirements of law and that without
certiorari review, the Board will suffer material harm that cannot
be remedied on plenary appeal.
Absent a threshold showing of irreparable harm, an appellate
court has no jurisdiction to grant certiorari review of a trial court’s
order. Mayport Hous. P’ship, Ltd. v. Albani, 244 So. 3d 1176, 1177
(Fla. 1st DCA 2018). “For a denial of discovery to constitute
material, irreparable harm, thus conferring certiorari jurisdiction,
the denial must ‘effectively eviscerate a party’s claim, defense, or
counterclaim.’” CQB, 2010, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 177
So. 3d 644, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting Giacalone v. Helen
Ellis Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA
2009)). Thus, certiorari, which is already an “extremely rare”
remedy, becomes “even rarer” as to orders denying discovery
because the petitioner “almost invariably” cannot demonstrate
irreparable harm. CQB, 177 So. 3d at 645; see also Eutsay v. State,
103 So. 3d 181, 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Unlike situations where
a trial court erroneously compels the exchange of information (the
3
proverbial ‘cat out of the bag’ orders), the harm done by the failure
to provide information can be corrected on appeal in most cases.”).
Such is true here. The Board cannot show how the trial court’s
order, which provides for an in camera review of responsive
documents and the opportunity for the Board to revise its
subpoenas, “effectively eviscerates” the Board’s ability to defend
against Barnes’ lawsuit. Indeed, it is not yet known what
documents the Board will ultimately receive. Thus, at this early
stage, any alleged injury to the Board is far too remote and
speculative to invoke this Court’s certiorari jurisdiction. See
Mayport Hous., 244 So. 3d at 1177–78

Outcome: Accordingly, the Board has failed to establish irreparable
harm, and we dismiss the petition because we lack jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: