Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure
A party who wants to challenge the other party’s right to take depositions in a Florida family law case may have to file a motion for a protective order. This was an issue in the case Delgado v. Miller, 3D25-1721 (Fla. 3d DCA October 1, 2025).
In this paternity case, the the father filed a motion to compel discovery which resulted in the trial court entering an order setting parameters for the deposition of the mother and her parents. The mother filed a petition for writ of certiorari, arguing the order departed from the essential requirements of the law and would cause her irreparable harm.
The appellate court disagreed, holding “As an initial matter, [the mother] cannot show that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in compelling her follow-up deposition. [the mother] argues that the trial court violated Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(a) in failing to find good cause before compelling her repeated deposition. But neither Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(a) nor the applicable Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.310(a) supports her contention that a court must find good cause before permitting an additional deposition of a party already deposed.1 The relevant family law rule of procedure specifies that “any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination” and must seek leave of court only under specific circumstances not present here. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.310(a).”
The court also noted “We also note that a cursory survey of Florida decisional authority reveals that the burden would be on [the mother] to seek a protective order to bar any repeat deposition.” The court further held “Additionally, [the mother] fails to show how the order compelling her deposition constitutes irreparable injury. The order on review compels a one-hour follow-up party deposition on child-support related issues in a contentious divorce case. Such a limited deposition, even if irrelevant or burdensome, fails to constitute the type of ‘carte blanche irrelevant discovery’ that could be “materially injurious” to [the mother], warranting certiorari relief.”
Last, as to the mother’s parents’ deposition, the court held “We next examine the provision of the order on review compelling [the mother] to coordinate her parents’ depositions, subject to strict time and subject matter limits. The order compels [the mother] to find a mutually convenient time for a series of depositions. It does not address a motion to quash a subpoena or a motion for protective order or the like. Such an order neither violates an essential legal principle, causes irreparable harm, nor violates third-party due process rights.”
Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.