IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
FINN LAW GROUP, P.A., FINN LAW GROUP, P.C.,
MICHAEL D. FINN AND PATRICK A. KENNEDY,
Petitioners,
v. Case No. 5D16-1591
ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB, INC.,
WILSON RESORT FINANCE, LLC AND
GLOBALACCESS EXCHANGE, LLC,
Respondents.
________________________________/
Opinion filed December 16, 2016
Petition for Certiorari Review
of Order from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Lisa T. Munyon, Judge.
J. Andrew Meyer, of LeavenLaw, St.
Petersburg, for Petitioners.
John H. Pelzer, Richard W. Epstein and
Sherine Marder, of Greenspoon Marder,
P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Respondents.
PALMER, J.
Finn Law Group, P.A., Finn Law Group, P.C., Michael D. Finn, and Patrick A.
Kennedy (“Petitioners”) have filed a petition seeking a writ of certiorari. Specifically, they
seek certiorari relief from an order entered by the trial court requiring them to respond to
discovery requests submitted in a lawsuit filed against them by Orange Lake Country
Club, Inc., Wilson Resort Finance, LLC, and GlobalAccess Exchange, LLC
(“Respondents”). Determining that, in ordering certain portions of such discovery, the trial
court departed from the essential requirements of law resulting in material injury which
cannot be remedied on direct appeal, we grant the petition, in part.
“An appellate court may grant a petition for certiorari only where the petitioner
demonstrates (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law (2) resulting in
material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be remedied on post-judgment
appeal.” Cohen v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 121 So. 3d 1121, 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing
Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)).
Here, Respondents sued Petitioners alleging that Petitioners tortiously interfered
with the contractual arrangements between Respondents and certain of Petitioners’ legal
clients. Respondents also alleged that Petitioners violated the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and otherwise caused harm requiring injunctive relief.
Essentially, Respondents' theory of the case was that Petitioners wrongly advised or
encouraged their legal clients to breach their contracts with Respondents.
Respondents moved to compel Petitioners to produce ten different categories of
documents pursuant to an earlier-served request to produce. Petitioners opposed that
motion, arguing that each category was overbroad, harassing, not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence, and protected by the work-product and the attorney-client
privileges. The trial court ordered Petitioners to respond to Respondents’ requests for
certain categories of documents and directed that any documents withheld due to a claim
of privilege be noted on a privilege log. This certiorari petition followed.
2
194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (explaining that in cases where communication
appears to be protected by attorney-client privilege on its face, party seeking disclosure
of the communication bears the burden of proving that it is not privileged).
Here, categories Five, Seven, Eight, and Ten seek documents which would
typically be privileged under the attorney-client privilege and, accordingly, we grant the
petition as to those categories without prejudice to Respondents filing more narrow
requests aimed at non-privileged documents. Similarly, categories Three and Four seek
documents which would typically be privileged under the work-product privilege and,
accordingly, we grant the petition as to those categories without prejudice to Respondents
filing more narrow requests aimed at non-privileged documents. See Nat'l Car Rental
Sys., Inc. v. Kosakowski, 659 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (explaining that order
compelling production of privileged work-product materials from litigant's file is type of
discovery order properly reviewable by certiorari). However, categories Six and Nine do
not seek documents which would typically be privileged and, accordingly, we deny the
petition as to those categories.
PETITION GRANTED in part; and DENIED in part; Cause REMANDED.
BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
4
194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (explaining that in cases where communication
appears to be protected by attorney-client privilege on its face, party seeking disclosure
of the communication bears the burden of proving that it is not privileged).
Here, categories Five, Seven, Eight, and Ten seek documents which would
typically be privileged under the attorney-client privilege and, accordingly, we grant the
petition as to those categories without prejudice to Respondents filing more narrow
requests aimed at non-privileged documents. Similarly, categories Three and Four seek
documents which would typically be privileged under the work-product privilege and,
accordingly, we grant the petition as to those categories without prejudice to Respondents
filing more narrow requests aimed at non-privileged documents. See Nat'l Car Rental
Sys., Inc. v. Kosakowski, 659 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (explaining that order
compelling production of privileged work-product materials from litigant's file is type of
discovery order properly reviewable by certiorari). However, categories Six and Nine do
not seek documents which would typically be privileged and, accordingly, we deny the
petition as to those categories.
PETITION GRANTED in part; and DENIED in part; Cause REMANDED.
BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
4