Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 28, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-0999
Lower Tribunal No. 17-17252
________________
G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., etc.,
Petitioner,
vs.
Publix Super Markets, Inc., etc.,
Respondent.
A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie
R. Manno Schurr, Judge.
Conrad & Scherer LLP, and Jimmy W. Mintz, and Irwin R. Gilbert (Ft.
Lauderdale), for petitioner.
Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Edward G. Guedes,
for respondent.
Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of G4S Security Solutions, Inc.’s Petition for Writ
of Certiorari and Publix Supermarkets, Inc.’s Response, we partially grant
the Petition with respect to discovery request number eight because it is
undisputed that the trial court allowed the exact same discovery to the
Plaintiff in this case that it is now prohibiting G4S from obtaining. The
requested discovery is essential to Petitioner’s claim for indemnity, and this
Court would be unable to determine, after judgment, how the requested
discovery would have affected the outcome of the case.1
Based solely on the unique procedural and factual situation presented
herein, we find a departure from the essential requirements of law for which
there is no adequate remedy on appeal. See DNJS Holdings, LLC v. Pet
Doctors Operating LLC,
224 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). (granting
certiorari where the discovery was essential to petitioner’s cause of action,
and the court could not determine after judgment how the requested
discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings); PDR
Grayson Dental Lab, LLC v. Progressive Dental Reconstruction, Inc.,
203
So. 3d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (holding that petitioner would be irreparably
1 We note that, earlier in the underlying case, after the trial court ordered
Publix to produce this discovery to the Plaintiff, they settled. Plaintiff’s claims
remain pending against GS4. GS4 and Publix also have crossclaims against
each other for indemnification.
2
harmed by not obtaining the requested discovery because it was necessary
to establish an essential element of its cause of action, and the court could
not determine after judgment how the requested discovery would have
affected the outcome of the proceedings).
We dismiss the Petition with respect to the remaining requests.
3
