DENNIS WRIGHT v. ANNA MORSAW, etc.
17-0589
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Petitioner Dennis Wright was criminally charged after an April 2016 hit-and-run that killed a pedestrian; the State alleged intoxicated driving after leaving a Delray Beach bar.
- The decedent’s estate sued Wright (and others) in civil court seeking damages, including punitive damages, asserting Wright had a known history of alcohol abuse.
- The estate served discovery seeking Wright’s financial records (bank accounts, credit card statements) and social media information (usernames, account contents, and authorizations for Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat).
- Wright objected to these requests on Fifth Amendment grounds; the trial court ordered responses to specific interrogatories and production requests, including signed authorizations for social media providers.
- Wright petitioned this court for certiorari to quash the discovery order, claiming the requested records were testimonial/communicative and could incriminate him in the related criminal case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in compelling production of financial records over Fifth Amendment claim | Estate: records are civilly discoverable and not protected | Wright: bank and credit card records are testimonial/communicative and could incriminate him | Denied — petitioner failed to show trial court departed from law; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether trial court erred in compelling identification and production of social media accounts and signed authorizations | Estate: social media content is discoverable in civil case; authorizations needed to obtain provider records | Wright: social media content and authorizations are testimonial and could incriminate him | Denied — petitioner did not demonstrate a link to criminal proof; no transcript or proffer to show testimonial nature |
| Whether production would constitute testimonial act linking Wright to criminal conduct | Estate: production seeks non-testimonial records or already-public content | Wright: production could form a link in the chain of evidence for prosecution | Denied — court found petitioner did not show how records would link to criminal guilt |
| Whether failure to provide hearing transcript precludes relief | Wright: asserts privilege but did not supply hearing transcript or proffer | Estate: not explicitly argued; trial court record controls | Denied — absence of transcript/proffer prevents showing abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Pisciotti v. Stephens, 940 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Fifth Amendment protects testimonial/communicative evidence but not non-testimonial physical evidence)
- Boyle v. Buck, 858 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (distinguishes testimonial from non-testimonial evidence for Fifth Amendment)
- Appel v. Bard, 154 So. 3d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (court must assess whether answers could form a link in the chain of evidence leading to prosecution)
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) (absence of transcript limits appellate relief on alleged trial-court error)
- Rendel v. Rendel, 340 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (permitting production of authorizations where account information had been addressed at trial)
- State v. Stahl, 206 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (discusses issues surrounding social media, passwords, and testimonial privilege)