Epstein Secrets

tted to discover relevant evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, if it may lead to the discovery of relevant evidence." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 93 (Fla. 1995). See also Murray Van & Storage, Inc. v. Murray, 343 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (stating that an objection to disc

e Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla.1999) (noting the lack of "affidavits, depositions or other sworn testimony in the record to support Allstate's claims."). Here, Edwards fails to do so, and further fails to explain how these allegedly overbroad requests are intended to annoy, embarrass, op

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

xt and a party may be permitted to discover evidence that would be inad- missible at trial, if it would lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Allstate; Amente. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1) delineates the proper scope of discovery: In General. Parties may obtain discovery regard- in

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

xt and a party may be permitted to discover evidence that would be inad- missible at trial, if it would lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Allstate; Amente. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1) delineates the proper scope of discovery: In General. Parties may obtain discovery regard- in

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

ith in the process and if the cost and expense are so great that access is basically denied to all but the few who can afford it. 13. Likewise, in Allstate, the Court had reasoned: - 3 - FOWLER WHITE BURNETT P.A. • 901 PHILLIPS POINT WEST, 777 SOUTH FLAGLF.R DRIVE, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 • (561

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

.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see, Menke' Broward School Bd, 916 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4111DCA 2005). The requirement of irreparable harm is jurisdictional. Allstate; Barad & Co. A petitioner's failure to demonstrate the satisfaction of this jurisdictional element should result in dismissal of a petition for wri

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.'. EFTA00233732 McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see, Menke'. Broward School Bd, 916 So.2d 8

2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see, Menke'. Broward School Bd, 916 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The requirement of irreparable harm is jurisdictional. Allstate; Barad & Co. A petitioner's failure to demonstrate the satisfaction of this jurisdictional element should result in dismissal of a petition for wri