Writ of Certiorari

Elements
The court may issue a writ of certiorari only when there is a departure from the essential requirements of law and no adequate remedy on plenary appeal. ''Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co.'', 515 So.2d 998, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)

No adequate remedy on plenary appeal
It is insufficient to show that "it would be expedient for this court to resolve the question now and save everyone a great deal of time and expense." This argument has been repeatedly deemed deficient. As stated by the Fourth DCA:
 * "On its face that is a very compelling argument! However, acceptance of such an argument would surely lead to a further inundation of the appellate courts of this state with petitions for certiorari in cases previously cognizable at law and would thereby create greater detriments than benefits to an already overloaded judicial system. One can hardly envision a case wherein the loser on an interlocutory motion would not feel an immediate determination of the issue would facilitate the handling of the remainder of the case, and save time, effort and expense. For this reason such grounds constitute an insufficient basis for obtaining a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order in an action formerly cognizable at law." Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So.2d 998, 1001-02 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)

Actions Applicable To
"A petition for writ of certiorari is the appropriate vehicle for testing the correctness of an order governing discovery. Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Jackson, 445 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Gadsden County Times, Inc. v. Horne, 426 So.2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 441 So.2d 631 (Fla.1983); Malt v. Simmons, 405 So.2d 1018, 1018-19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). While certiorari may be used to obtain review of discovery orders, with the exception of the decision in Allstate Insurance Company v. Gibbs, 340 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. dismissed, 354 So.2d 980 (Fla.1977), this court has until recently held the extraordinary writ of certiorari could not be used to obtain review of orders denying motions to dismiss." ''Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co.'', 515 So.2d 998, 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)