261 So. 3d 605
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Chetu, Inc. sued KO Gaming, Inc. for unpaid software programming services, asserting breach of written contract, open account, account stated; quantum meruit and unjust enrichment were later dismissed by Chetu.
- KO Gaming asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims, alleging Chetu failed to perform under the contract.
- During discovery KO Gaming noticed a deposition duces tecum seeking Chetu’s and non-party employees’ private financial information, including profit margins, projections, cost analyses, and employee compensation.
- Chetu moved for a protective order arguing the requested private financial information was irrelevant to the breach-of-contract dispute; the trial court denied the protective order.
- Chetu petitioned this court for writ of certiorari to quash the discovery order; KO Gaming did not respond to the show-cause order.
- The Fourth District granted the petition and quashed the discovery order, holding the requested financial information was not relevant to proving breach and implicates privacy concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chetu) | Defendant's Argument (KO Gaming) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private financial information (profit projections, employee salaries) is discoverable in this breach-of-contract action | Not relevant to proving breach; disclosure would invade privacy and cause irreparable harm | Relevant to counterclaim that Chetu understaffed the project and to assessing damages or performance | Quashed: such private financial information is not relevant to determining breach and is therefore not discoverable |
Key Cases Cited
- Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003) (disclosure of personal financial information may cause irreparable harm and must be balanced against discovery needs)
- Straub v. Matte, 805 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (privacy concerns relevant when personal financial information is sought)
- Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (personal financial information discoverable only when relevant to litigation)
- Gruman v. Bankers Tr. Co., 379 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (financial information may be discoverable only in aid of execution after judgment)
- Cooper v. Fulton, 117 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960) (similar limitation on discovery of financial information)
- Friedman v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (elements required to prove breach of contract)