Quinney v. Quinney
| Decision Date | 23 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D04-1320.,5D04-1320. |
| Citation | 890 So.2d 407 |
| Parties | Araan E. QUINNEY, Petitioner, v. David Wilson QUINNEY, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles A. Esposito of Upchurch & Esposito, P.A., St. Augustine, for Petitioner.
Robert L. McLeod, II, of The McLeod Firm, St. Augustine, for Respondent.
Araan E. Quinney, ("the former wife"), petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's denial of a protective order for privileged communications between her and her psychotherapist. In the alternative, the former wife requests remand for an opportunity to be heard on her motion because the scheduled hearing proceeded without her participation. We grant the petition, issue the writ and quash the trial court's denial of her motion for discovery protection.
The former wife scheduled a hearing on her motion for protective order seeking the protection of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, but her attorney was unable to attend. The former wife's attorney represents the following took place below: The special master's clerk called the trial judge in chambers at the time of the scheduled hearing to advise of a short delay, but the hearing proceeded as scheduled. When the former wife's attorney arrived at the judge's chambers within fifteen minutes, the judge indicated that his decision would be rendered later, that he knew nothing about the earlier phone call and that he did not want to engage in any ex-parte communication about the matter. Inexplicably, the court subsequently entered an order finding that: (1) there was no appearance by the former wife or her attorney at the hearing set for 2:30 p.m.; and (2) the discovery sought was "relevant to the proceedings before the Court and are subject to disclosure pursuant to the Rules of Civil and Family Procedure." Discovery sought by the former husband included the setting of depositions of the former wife's past psychotherapists. The trial court denied the former wife's motion for protective order seeking the protection of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. This petition for certiorari ensued.1
review denied, 845 So.2d 890 (Fla.2003), explains that certiorari is proper to challenge orders compelling discovery when privileged matters are ordered disclosed. The discovery orders are reviewable when they constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law, leaving petitioners with no adequate remedy.
At the outset, we note that neither David Wilson Quinney, ("the former husband"), nor the former wife alleged that either is unfit to have unsupervised contact with their minor child. Indeed, in his supplemental petition to modify the final judgment, the former husband sought "rotating custody" of their child, while the former wife sought to retain primary residential responsibility with "standard" alternating weekend visitation by the former husband. We observe that the former husband's request for "rotating" custody infers that the former wife is a fit and proper parent and is of no risk to their child. However, the former husband alleges in his answer to the former wife's petition for writ of certiorari that the former wife's mental health is at issue because her allegedly fragile mental and emotional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cruz-Govin v. Torres
...to the privilege applies. See Brousseau v. Broward County Bd. of Comm'rs, 992 So.2d 882, 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Quinney v. Quinney, 890 So.2d 407, 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Morrison, 621 So.2d at 468. In support of his position, Torres relies upon: the allegations of the amended complaint ......
-
Ricketts v. Ricketts
...was not privileged. Certiorari is appropriate to review orders compelling discovery of privileged matters. Quinney v. Quinney, 890 So. 2d 407, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ; accord Pauker v. Olson, 834 So. 2d 198, 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The irremediable harm prong of the certiorari standard is ......
- Hernandez v. Feliciano
-
Garbacik v. Wal-Mart Transportation
...otherwise privileged information must demonstrate that the patient has placed his or her mental condition in issue. Quinney v. Quinney, 890 So.2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Palm Beach County School Bd. v. Morrison, 621 So.2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Sykes By & Through Sykes v. St. Andrews Sch......
-
Trial and evidence
...can assert privilege on behalf of patient if psychotherapist believes it is in patient’s best interest to do so. • Quinney v. Quinney, 890 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Error to deny wife’s motion for protective order regarding privileged communications between the wife and her psychother......
-
Privileges
...seeking otherwise privileged information to show that the patient has placed his or her mental condition in issue. Quinney v. Quinney , 890 So.2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Daly v. Daly Where a husband sought custody of his child, the combination of custody action, substance abuse treatment o......
-
Discovery and use of experts
...they made to counselor would remain confidential, regardless of whether therapy was individual or joint session); Quinney v. Quinney, 890 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(error to deny wife’s motion for protective order regarding privileged communications between wife and her psychotherapist ......