Rousso v. Hannon
Decision Date | 06 August 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 3D14–380.,3D14–380. |
Citation | 146 So.3d 66 |
Parties | Mark ROUSSO and The Alhadeff Law Group, P.L., Petitioners, v. William Scott HANNON, individually, and G & S Realty Advisors Corp., a Florida corporation, Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
The Alhadeff Law Group, P.L., and Mark C. Alhadeff, for petitioners.
Arnaldo Velez, P.A., and Arnaldo Velez, Coral Gables, for respondents.
Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER, and LOGUE, JJ.
Mark Rousso (“Rousso”) and The Alhadeff Law Group (“Alhadeff”) (collectively, “the petitioners”) petition this Court for certiorari relief from the trial court's order denying their motions for a protective order, which effectively allows irrelevant discovery of their financial information and potentially privileged attorney-client communications although they are not in any way involved in the case pending below. Because the order departs from the essential requirements of law and would cause damage not redressable on direct appeal, we grant the petition and quash the order below.
The underlying action is a contract dispute stemming from a transaction in which the plaintiff, Andrew Mirmelli (“Mirmelli”), contacted the defendant—respondent, William Scott Hannon (“Hannon”), regarding the potential sale of a commercial parking lot in Miami. Before Hannon, who was acting as a real estate agent for the owner and potential seller of the lot, agreed to provide any information to Mirmelli, he required that Mirmelli sign a document titled “The Gateway Confidentiality/Non–Circumvention Agreement” (“the Agreement”). This Agreement forbade Mirmelli from disclosing any of the information furnished by Hannon to third parties and from circumventing Hannon by contacting another realty service or agent to pursue Mirmelli's purchase of the property. The Agreement specifically states that nothing therein constitutes an offer of sale and that the seller, Hannon, could solicit other offers or sell the property to a third party without notice to Mirmelli.
Shortly after Mirmelli signed the Agreement, Rousso, a non-party to the Mirmelli–Hannon Agreement, purchased a commercial parking lot in the area. Mirmelli brought suit against Hannon to rescind their Agreement and recover damages for the lost potential to purchase the parking lot. Mirmelli alleged that Hannon had not provided the evaluation materials as mandated in the Agreement and that Hannon had otherwise wrongfully induced Mirmelli into signing the Agreement.1 Hannon responded by denying the substance of Mirmelli's allegations and raising the affirmative defense that he could not be held personally liable because he was working as an agent. Hannon has not raised any counterclaims against Mirmelli and has not interpleaded Rousso or Alhadeff. Thus, Rousso and Alhadeff currently stand as wholly unrelated nonparties to the underlying litigation.
During the course of the litigation, Hannon sought discovery of Rousso's financial information and communications between Rousso and Alhadeff, Rousso's legal counsel, purportedly to obtain details regarding the sale of the parking lot. Rousso and Alhadeff moved for a protective order, claiming that their purchase of the lot was irrelevant to Mirmelli's pending claims against Hannon, particularly because Rousso and Alhadeff were not involved in the litigation, their financial information is presumed confidential, and the communications between Rousso and his counsel could be protected by the attorney-client privilege. In response, Hannon argued that the facts of the sale were relevant in the Mirmelli–Hannon litigation because the transaction appeared fishy2 to him given the odd procedural background. The trial court denied the motion for a protective order, and Rousso and Alhadeff were ordered to submit to the discovery requests. Rousso and Alhadeff have filed this petition to contest that ruling.
A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary type of relief that is granted in very limited circumstances. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n, 104 So.3d 344, 351–52 (Fla.2012). To invoke an appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction, “[t]he petitioning party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case[,] (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’ ” Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., 99 So.3d 450, 454 (Fla.2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812, 822 (Fla.2004) ). Certain types of discovery Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995) (quoting Martin–Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1100 (Fla.1987) ). We find that the petitioners have met their burden of proving the elements necessary for certiorari relief.
Discovery is limited to those matters relevant to the litigation as framed by the parties' pleadings.Diaz–Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ; Capco Props., LLC v. Monterey Gardens of Pinecrest Condo., 982 So.2d 1211, 1213–14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ; Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So.2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) ; Krypton Broad. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. MGM–Pathe Commc'ns Co., 629 So.2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), disapproved on other grounds by Allstate, 655 So.2d at 95. In the instant case, Mirmelli's complaint and Hannon's affirmative defenses do not implicate the financial records of Rousso or Alhadeff. See Diaz–Verson, 54 So.3d at 1011 (). As such, the order below clearly departs from the essential requirements of law.
Moreover, both types of information Hannon seeks—third party financial records and records kept by an attorney about his non-party client3 —are of the utmost sensitivity and are not discoverable unless the party seeking discovery establishes a need for the discovery sufficient to overcome the privacy rights of the third party. Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis' Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So.3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (). This heightened standard is necessary because “ ‘the disclosure of personal financial information may cause irreparable harm to a person forced to disclose it, in a case in which the information is not relevant,’ ” Rappaport v. Mercantile Bank, 17 So.3d 902, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Straub v. Matte, 805 So.2d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ), and because “personal finances are among those private matters kept secret by most people.” Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So.2d 1027, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Winfield v. Div. of Pari–Mutuel Wagering, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla.1985) ).
Likewise, Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four P'ship, 638 So.2d 1050, 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (citations omitted); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Hall–Edwards, 997 So.2d 1148, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ( ); Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ().
The dissent would hold that the discovery order at issue merely allows discovery on a relevant issue that can be properly safeguarded by requiring the parties to sign a confidentiality agreement, and therefore, no irreparable harm has been demonstrated. Respectfully, tangential relevance is not enough when it comes to confidential records of a non-party, and a confidentiality agreement, while it can help reduce the impact of improper discovery, does not grant a party carte blanche to obtain documents to which it has no right. The petition is being granted because the requested discovery constitutes a trolling exercise through the confidential and potentially privileged records of a non-party.
The dissent argues that the requested discovery is relevant to the allegations in Mirmelli's complaint because the financial and legal details of the petitioners' transactions could potentially reveal that Mirmelli himself indirectly purchased the underlying property. While technically true, this reasoning overlooks the following. First, there is no factual basis in the record supporting the dissent's speculation that the petitioners are in any way related to Mirmelli, and Mirmelli's complaint directly avers that he did not purchase the subject property. Second, the examination of any person's financial information could reveal that they acted under Mirmelli's direction. Although discovery is meant to be broad, it is not without limits. Third, the only way the requested discovery could be relevant is if Mirmelli himself purchased the property through the petitioners, and there is a much simpler and less invasive way to unearth this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hett v. Barron-Lunde
...is not entitled to a "trolling exercise through the confidential and potentially privileged records of a non-party." Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (granting certiorari where party sought nonparty and privileged records in possession of attorney). Where a trial court......
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Sanders
...law and will cause material injury to State Farm throughout subsequent proceedings that cannot be remedied on appeal. Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ("To invoke an appellate court's certiorari jurisdiction, ‘[t]he petitioning party must demonstrate that the contested......
-
Lee v. Condell, 3D15–2316
...ANALYSIS"A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary type of relief that is granted in very limited circumstances." Rousso v. Hannon , 146 So.3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). To be entitled to certiorari, the petitioner must establish the following three elements: " ‘(1) a departure from the esse......
-
Am. Med. Sys., LLC v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC
...See J.B. v. State, 250 So. 3d 829, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ; Mana v. Cho, 147 So. 3d 1098, 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ; Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). In such instances, should this Court then conclude that the discovery order departs from the essential requirements of ......