AG Beaumont 1, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2D14–3817.
| Decision Date | 20 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D14–3817.,2D14–3817. |
| Citation | 160 So.3d 510 |
| Parties | AG BEAUMONT 1, LLC; AG Beaumont 2, LLC; AG Beaumont 3, LLC; AG Beaumont 4, LLC; AG Beaumont 5, LLC; AG Beaumont 6, LLC; AG Beaumont 7, LLC; AG Beaumont 8, LLC; AG Beaumont 9, LLC; AG Beaumont 10, LLC; AG Beaumont 11, LLC; AG Beaumont 12, LLC; AG Beaumont 13, LLC; AG Beaumont 14, LLC; AG Beaumont 15, LLC; AG Beaumont 16, LLC; AG Beaumont 17, LLC; AG Beaumont 18, LLC; AG Beaumont 19, LLC; AG Beaumont 20, LLC; AG Beaumont 21, LLC; AG Beaumont 22, LLC; AG Beaumont 23, LLC; AG Beaumont 24, LLC; AG Beaumont 26, LLC, Delaware limited liability companies, Petitioners, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for the Holders of Banc of America Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Commercial Pass–Through Certificates, Series 2004–4; Oriz Capital Markets, LLC; and LSREF2 Oreo Direct, LLC, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jon P. Tasso, Richard A. Schlosser, Ethan J. Loeb, and Jessica S. Swann of Smolker, Bartlett, Schlosser, Loeb & Hinds, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioners.
Adam C. Losey and Kevin A. Reck of Foley & Lardner LLP, Orlando, and Stephen P. Drobny and Mark S. Roher of Jones Walker LLP, Miami, for Respondents.
Twenty-five limited liability companies, here referred to collectively as the LLCs, seek a writ of certiorari to quash an order requiring the production of documents from Adler Group Beaumont Investors, LLC, a former co-defendant in the civil action below. The LLCs contend that the documents are protected by attorney-client privilege and that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by compelling their production without first reviewing them. We agree that an in camera review was required before the court could decide the privilege claim. Accordingly, we grant the petition.
The LLCs and Adler were joint defendants in a foreclosure action. Eventually, the plaintiff dropped Adler as a party and then served it with a subpoena duces tecum seeking correspondence between Adler and the LLCs. The LLCs objected to the production of numerous e-mails, and they prepared a privilege log. A member of one LLC filed an affidavit asserting that the LLCs and Adler coordinated their defense during the period in which the e-mails were exchanged. A second affidavit by a member of a different LLC explained that she did not have an e-mail account and used an e-mail address belonging to her investment advisor and agent. Adler did not take any position on the claim of privilege. In deposition, one of Adler's corporate representatives disavowed any explicit agreement for a joint defense.
The circuit court overruled the claim of privilege and ordered the production without conducting an in camera review. The LLCs petition for relief from this order.
Certiorari is the proper method for seeking review of an order compelling disclosure of information that is claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege. Courville v. Promedco of Sw. Fla., Inc., 743 So.2d 41, 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). A party claiming such a privilege is entitled to have the documents reviewed in camera by the court prior to their disclosure. Patrowicz v. Wolff, 110 So.3d 973, 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), disagreed with on other grounds by Lyons v. Lyons, No. 4D14–3429, 162 So.3d 212, 2015 WL 543106 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 11, 2015).
The attorney-client privilege is codified in section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2013): “A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the contents of confidential communications when such other person learned of the communications because they were made in the rendition of legal services to the client.” § 90.502(2). “A communication between lawyer and client is ‘confidential’ if it is not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than” those necessary for the rendition of legal services or the transmission of the communication. § 90.502(1)(c).
Generally, the attorney-client privilege is waived when one holding the privilege makes a voluntary disclosure to a third party. But an exception to the waiver rule permits litigants who share unified interests in litigation to exchange privileged information in order to adequately prepare their cases without losing the protection afforded by the privilege. Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Bros., 508 So.2d 437, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In the Visual Scene...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hett v. Barron-Lunde
...of documents without first reviewing them to determine whether attorney-client privilege applied); AG Beaumont 1, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 160 So. 3d 510, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quashing order compelling production of documents containing allegedly privileged material absent in camer......
-
Brinkmann v. Petro Welt Trading Ges.M.B.H
...in order to adequately prepare their cases without losing the protection afforded by the privilege." AG Beaumont 1, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 160 So. 3d 510, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; see also Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A. v. Compson , 629 So. 2d 849, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ; Asplundh Tr......
-
Brinkmann v. Petro Welt Trading Ges.M.B.H
... ... privilege." AG Beaumont 1, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, ... N.A., 160 ... ...
-
Dominguez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., Case No. 2D18-768
...documents responsive to this request to determine whether the attorney-client privilege applied. See AG Beaumont 1, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 160 So.3d 510, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; Patrowicz v. Wolff, 110 So.3d 973, 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("A party claiming that documents sought by an......