Summary
holding that section 90.410 does not supply "a ground for refusing to answer questions during discovery"
Summary of this case from Anderson v. MitchellOpinion
No. 2D99-2096.
Opinion filed January 26, 2000.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Polk County; Cecelia M. Moore, Judge.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, Miami, for Respondent.
Dale Sjuts seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a circuit court order compelling him to answer certain discovery requests propounded by the State in a proceeding under the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. Sjuts bases his objections on section 90.410, Florida Statutes (1997), providing that nolo contendere pleas are not admissible into evidence, and section 985.05, Florida Statutes (1997), providing that court records of juvenile delinquency proceedings are not admissible into evidence. We deny Sjuts' petition because neither statute provides a ground for refusing to answer questions during discovery. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b) (providing that "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action . . ." and that "it is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial. . . ."). We make no comment regarding the admissibility of any of this evidence at trial. We also decline to address Sjuts' unpreserved constitutional challenges.
At the time relevant to these proceedings, the Act appeared at sections 916.31 — 916.49, Florida Statutes (1998). It has since been amended and renumbered as sections 394.910 — 394.931, Florida Statutes (1999).
Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.