
    James BAKER, Appellant, v. Robert M. FENDER, Appellee.
    No. 92-1640.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 16, 1993.
    
      1. Pretrial Procedure «=563, 690
    Lack of compliance with trial judge’s order to plead with more specificity before discovery was not basis for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state cause of action.
    2. Pretrial Procedure
    In ruling on motion to dismiss, it is inappropriate to consider sufficiency of evidence which plaintiff is likely to produce.
    Nelson & Feldman and Michael K. Feld-man, Bay Harbor Islands, for appellant.
    Spiegelman and Spiegelman and Robert I. Spiegelman, Miami, for appellee.
    Before FERGUSON, LEVY and GODERICH, JJ.
   FERGUSON, Judge.

The issue on this appeal is whether the failure to give precise rather than approximate dates of alleged transgressions, in an action for tortious interference with an expected devise, constitutes a failure to state a cause of action. We hold that it does not and reverse.

Appellant’s lack of compliance with the trial judge’s order to plead — before discovery — with more specificity, is no basis for a dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. A basic purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the over-all sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Augustine v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla.1956); Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.420. In ruling on the motion, it is inappropriate to consider the sufficiency of the evidence which the plaintiff is likely to produce. N.E. at West Palm Beach, Inc. v. Horowitz, 471 So.2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.  