the trial court improperly denied a class action defendant’s motion seeking to preclude discovery on the merits of the class action claims until after the trial court determined issues relating to class certification

Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant, seeking damages arising from Defendant's alleged mismanagement of a corporation in which both Plaintiff and Defendant owned stock. Plaintiff attempted to assert a class action, purportedly on behalf of other minority stockholders, and commenced discovery by filing a request for the production of documents from Defendant and the various corporations that he owned.  The Plaintiff’s document request, however, focused on the merits of Plaintiff's claim, and not on the question of the propriety of class certification. Accordingly, Defendant filed a motion for protective order seeking to limit the scope of discovery on the merits of the claims until the trial court determined the question of class certification. The trial court, however, denied Defendant's motion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s and quashed Plaintiff’s document requests.  Initially, the Court noted that a class action may not proceed until there is a named plaintiff with standing to represent the class.  Merely identifying the action as a “class action” in the Complaint, the Court stated, does not convert an action into a class action. Instead, a trial court should not certify a class until it is satisfied, as a result of "a rigorous analysis," that the action meets all of the requirements for class certification.  The Court stated that, if Plaintiff lacks standing or if class certification is inappropriate, Plaintiff would not be entitled to pursue discovery on behalf of a putative class that Plaintiff does not represent.  Given the possibility that the trial court may find that Plaintiff does not have standing to represent the purported class or that class certification otherwise is improper, the Court held that discovery concerning the merits of Plaintiff’s claim is inappropriate prior to class certification.  The Court also noted that Rule 1.220(d)(1) of the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure allows for certain discovery prior to class certification, but does not contemplate discovery on the merits of the underlying claim prior to class certification.

Policastro v. Stelk, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D818 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 23, 2001).