Jilco, Inc. v. MRG of S. Fla., Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. 4D14–2114.,4D14–2114.
• Parties: JILCO, INC., Petitioner, v. MRG OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

162 So.3d 108

JILCO, INC., Petitioner

v.MRG OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., Respondent.

No. 4D14–2114.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 15, 2014.

Reed B. McClosky of Freedman & McClosky, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Marc A. Silverman of Frank, Weinberg & Black, P.L., Plantation, for respondent.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Jilco, Inc. (“Jilco”), seeks certiorari review of an order denying its motion for protective order on a request for post-settlement discovery. We grant the petition.

Jilco subleased a commercial property to respondent, MRG of South Florida, Inc. (“MRG”). After a dispute arose regarding the sublease, the court ordered mediation where the parties entered into a preliminary settlement agreement titled “Memorandum of Mediation Results.” The memorandum included a provision stating that the “[p]arties contemplate executing more formal documents to implement this agreement. However, if not done, this agreement shall be enforceable by the parties/courts.”

Paragraph (a) of the agreement provided that MRG's rent would be set at $31,000 per month. Paragraph (b) provided that the rent would always be $14,000 more than Jilco's rent to the owner of the property.

A few months after the agreement was signed, Jilco learned that its rent was being increased due to a property tax increase passed through by the property owner. Jilco notified MRG that rent under the sublease would be increased to $33,995.71, which was $14,000 more than Jilco's new rent to the owner.

MRG filed a motion to enforce settlement asking the court to enforce paragraph (a), which set the rent amount at $31,000. Jilco argued that the increase was consistent with paragraph (b) of the agreement. Alternatively, MRG asked that the agreement be rescinded or voided due to mistake or absence of a meeting of the minds.

By subpoena, MRG requested: (1) all leases and subleases relative to the property; (2) all communications concerning documents in response to paragraph 1 above, concerning payments due under the lease, adjustments to amounts due under the lease as amended and/or the reasons for adjustments under the lease as amended; (3) the entire lease file; (4) all payments, records of payment, ledgers or bookkeeping entries, sent by, received by, or in the possession of the property owner from any entity or individual relative to documents responsive to paragraph 1 above; and (5) the payment ledger pertaining to the lease since 2010.

Jilco moved for a protective order seeking to limit discovery to information relevant to the dispute regarding the settlement. Jilco objected that the request asked for nineteen years of payment history and correspondence between Jilco and the property owner.

The trial court took the position that until the settlement issue was decided, the case remained open and full discovery would be available. Essentially, it found that there was no settlement agreement until one was submitted and approved by the court. Jilco argues that the agreement did not need to be approved by the court to be valid and that discovery beyond the terms of the settlement is prohibited at this time. We agree.

“[R]eview by certiorari is appropriate when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to a petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.”Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995) (citing Martin–Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987) ). The disclosure of a party's financial or confidential business information may cause irreparable harm where the information is irrelevant to any pending matter. See Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla.2003) (quoting Straub v. Matte, 805 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ); Elsner v. E–Commerce Coffee Club, 126 So.3d 1261, 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Here, Jilco alleges that disclosure of information regarding its lease with the property owner would be particularly harmful because MRG has always coveted the long-term lease Jilco has with the property owner. Jilco has...