Epstein Secrets

surprise, to encourage the settlement of cases, to avoid costly litigation, and to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure a fair trial." Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (citing Dodson v. Pend!, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Suif Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970))

d 517 (Fla. 1996) (citing Dodson v. Pend!, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980); Suif Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)). -"S ,r‘ II. In Elkins, the Florida Supreme Court commented on the purpose of pretrial discovery: Discovery was never intended to be used as a tactical tool to harass an

ated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the case in which the discovery is sought. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995). 10. "Pretrial discovery was implemented to simplify the issues in a case, to eliminate the element of surprise, t

se, to encourage the set- tlement of cases, to avoid the cost of litigation, and to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure a fair trial. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla.1996). Here the petitioners argue that the information sought to be discovered regarding prostitution and their sexua

t to the subject matter of the case and must be admiss- ible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.l995); Amerce v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030 (Fla.1995); Russell v. Stardust Cruis- ers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Ha. 5th DCA 1997). The

se, to encourage the set- tlement of cases, to avoid the cost of litigation, and to achieve a balanced search for the truth to ensure a fair trial. Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla.1996). Here the petitioners argue that the information sought to be discovered regarding prostitution and their sexua

t to the subject matter of the case and must be admiss- ible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995); Amente v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030 (Fla.1995); Russell v. Stardust Cruis- ers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Ha. 5th DCA 1997). The

1:17 2:15 Edwards 1:163:7,7 5:16,20,23 42:22 42:22 effect 9:7 17:5 efforts 41:10 either 9:3 10:5 30:20 40:3,25 elected 29:22 eligible 31:20 Elkins 1:20 email 44:24 embarrassment 32:3 enforce 21:17 25:17 enforcement 7:2 enforcing 25:10 enter 40:20 entered 33:12 4ff 19 entire 5:15 20:25 3

l injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Allstate Ins. Co.'. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995); Barad & Co. I. EFTA00184085 McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see, Menke' Broward School Bd, 916 So.2d 8