Kauffman v. Duran

• Decision Date: 27 May 2015
• Docket Number: No. 3D14–3081.,3D14–3081.
• Citation: 165 So.3d 805
• Parties: Carlos KAUFFMAN, Petitioner, v. Franklin DURAN, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

165 So.3d 805

Carlos KAUFFMAN, Petitioner

v.Franklin DURAN, Respondent.

No. 3D14–3081.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 27, 2015.

Blaxberg, Grayson & Kukoff and Moises T. Grayson and Alexis S. Read, Miami, for petitioner.

Jones Walker and Edward R. Shohat, Miami; De La Peña Group and Leoncio E. de la Peña D. and Otto C. de Cordoba and Tracy Perez, Miami, for respondent.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS, and LOGUE, JJ.

Opinion

SUAREZ, J.

Carlos Kauffman, once again, has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the trial court's order denying his motion for a protective order to prevent his deposition. Once again, we deny the petition.

Franklin Duran seeks to complete the deposition of Kauffman as a non-party witness in Duran's suit against Mario A. Lamar and Mario A. Lamar, P.A., his (and Kauffmann's) former business attorney. Duran's malpractice suit against Mr. Lamar and Mario A. Lamar, P.A., alleges breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. The allegations are that Mr. Lamar represented both Mr. Duran and Mr. Kauffmann in joint business dealings involving many millions of dollars. It is alleged that not only did he mismanage the assets but that when the two business partners decided to divide their joint assets, Mr. Lamar breached his duty and/or committed fraud in the way he handled the transactions, resulting in large monetary losses to Mr. Duran and disproportionate gains to Mr. Kauffmann.

This matter has previously been before this court. Mr. Kauffmann's deposition was discontinued after four hours for reasons that are not relevant to our decision here. Mr. Kauffmann filed a motion for a protective order to stop the continuation of his deposition. The trial court denied the motion and Kauffmann filed his first petition for writ of certiorari, which this court denied on April 29, 2013, Case Number 13–1045. Before the deposition could continue, Mr. Kauffmann filed a second motion for protective order raising some of the same issues as well as new issues. The trial court again denied the motion, which brings us to the present petition for writ of certiorari. Kauffmann asserts that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by denying his motion for a protective order. Kauffmann argues that proceeding with the deposition will cause him and his family irreparable harm here and abroad by requiring him to disclose personal finances, assets, and holdings related to the multiple investments he and Duran shared as former business partners, which investments were managed by attorney Lamar.

In order for this Court to grant the petition and quash the order below, Kauffmann must first demonstrate that the order constitutes (1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case, and (3) that injury cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. See Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So.3d 450, 454–55 (Fla.2012). Kauffmann has failed to demonstrate that the taking of his deposition will result in irreparable harm.

As the pleadings demonstrate, Kauffmann is a material witness in the underlying action. As a material witness, the fact that certain...