only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Parker v. State, 904 So.2d 370, 379 (Fla.2005) (quoting State v. Coney, 845 So.2d 120, 137 (Fla.2003)). In denying the request here, the trial court specifically found that the requests were not “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” and were “overly broad and unduly burdensome.” The record fully supports the trial court’s finding with regard to the denial of these overly broad requests. It was reasonable to limit discovery of public records to those pertaining to the investigation of the Maclvor murders, rather than any investigation in which Overton had ever been involved, so such was certainly not an abuse of discretion. See Moore v. State, 820 So.2d 199, 204 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>); Glock v. Moore, 776 So.2d 243, 253 (Fla.2001)
recognizing that the district court has discretion to admit or deny motive evidence holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds recognizing that trial court has broad discretion in ruling on admissibility of evidence and party claiming abuse of that discretion bears a heavy burden recognizing that a trial court has the discretion to deny public records requests that are overly broad of questionable relevance and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence holding that a trial court has broad discretion to modify a spousal maintenance award