Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 423 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982).
Search
Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 423 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). Book View Copy Cite
DOW CORNING CORPORATION
v.
Allibert GARNER and George M. Garner, her husband, and Kenneth L. Winslow
Nos. 82-1835, 82-2170.
District Court of Appeal of Florida.
Dec 29, 1982.
423 So. 2d 1034
Marc Cooper of Greene & Cooper, P.A., Miami, and David F. McIntosh of Corlett, Killian, Hardeman, McIntosh & Levi, Miami, for petitioners., Jack H. Vital, III, of Simons & Schlesinger, Fort Lauderdale, and Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami, for respondents.
Dell, Hersey, Walden.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Dow Corning Corporation, by consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari, seeks review of two orders requiring production of documents.

We find the orders compelling discovery contain sufficient safeguards to protect petitioner from disclosure of work product, trade secrets, and other privileged information. However, in light of the broad scope of discovery sought by respondents, Allibert and George Garner, the trial court’s failure to condition discovery on the payment of petitioner’s reasonable expenses of making discovery constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law with no adequate remedy by appeal. Schering Corporation v. Thornton, 280 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

Accordingly, we grant certiorari and direct the trial court to enter such further orders as may be necessary to conform to the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c).

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

HERSEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.