Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri, Holton & Douberley, P.A. v. Mullin

• Decision Date: 24 December 1991
• Docket Number: No. 91-1758,91-1758
• Citation: 602 So.2d 955
• Parties: PYSZKA, KESSLER, MASSEY, WELDON, CATRI, HOLTON & DOUBERLEY, P.A., Petitioner, v. Claudia MULLIN, Respondent. 602 So.2d 955, 17 Fla. L. Week. D111
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 955

602 So.2d 955

PYSZKA, KESSLER, MASSEY, WELDON, CATRI, HOLTON & DOUBERLEY P.A., Petitioner, v. Claudia MULLIN, Respondent.

No. 91-1758.

602 So.2d 955, 17 Fla. L. Week. D111

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Dec. 24, 1991.

Elser, Greene & Hodor and Cynthia L. Greene, Miami, for petitioner.

Susan R. Cohen, Nancy Schleifer, Miami, for respondent.

Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.

BASKIN, Judge.

Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri, Holton, and Douberley, P.A. [the firm], seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court's denial of a motion for protective order. During discovery in her action for dissolution of marriage, Claudia Mullin served the firm with a subpoena duces tecum requesting production of a myriad of financial documents. ¹ She sought discovery to ascertain her husband's financial interest in the law firm where her husband works as an attorney. The firm is not a party to the dissolution proceeding; however, it submitted an affidavit asserting that the husband is a non-equity partner and that he earns the greater of $85,000 or 4% of the firm's net yearly profits. The firm filed a motion for protective order, arguing that certain documents were not subject to discovery. The trial court denied the motion. ² We grant certiorari review upon a determination that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law: the firm demonstrated good cause warranting entry of a protective order limiting the scope of discovery. See Federal Deposit Ins. Co. v. Balkany, 564 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(c).

The disclosure of information delineating the partners' financial situations unnecessarily violates their privacy rights. See Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, 199 So.2d 97, 98 (Fla.1967); Bradstreet v. Taraschi, 529 So.2d 809, 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Palmer v. Servis, 393 So.2d 653, 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In determining whether to limit the scope of discovery to protect a person's right of privacy, the trial court must balance the relevant competing interests. Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So.2d 533, 538 (Fla.1987); Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Here, the competing interests are served by limiting discovery to documents probative of the husband's financial interest in the firm. See Rasmussen, 500 So.2d at 538; Smith v. Bloom, 506 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); cf. Jerry's South, Inc. v. Morran, 582 So.2d 803, 804-805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Balkany, 564 So.2d at 580. The requested discovery includes documents that do not...