Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co.
54 So. 3d 1007
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Diaz-Verson petitions for certiorari to review a trial court order denying protective relief regarding fifteen subpoenas duces tecum to nonparties seeking Diaz-Verson's personal financial information.
- Walbridge alleged in its second amended complaint that Diaz-Verson and/or his entities engaged in fraud, but only count VI targets Diaz-Verson personally.
- Walbridge sought Diaz-Verson's personal financial records (including joint accounts with his wife) from financial institutions identified in a personal financial statement.
- The trial court denied the protective order and permitted the subpoenas; Walbridge argues disclosure is necessary for the fraud claim.
- The court applies certiorari review to discovery orders and analyzes relevance, irreparable harm, and proportionality of disclosure to pleadings.
- The court quashes the order, grants the petition, and holds Diaz-Verson’s personal financial information is not relevant to the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court departed from essential law by denying protective order | Walbridge contends discovery is relevant and material. | Diaz-Verson argues records are private and not relevant. | Yes; order quashed for lack of relevance. |
| Is Diaz-Verson's personal financial information relevant to Walbridge's claims | Personal finances may be relevant through reliance on financial documents. | Pleadings do not establish any reliance on personal financials or statements. | Not relevant to the pleadings. |
| Did Walbridge's reliance on documents appear in the pleadings | Walbridge relied on Diaz-Verson's financial statement and a letter in continuing construction. | Reliance is not alleged in the complaint. | Not established in pleadings. |
| May unrevealed personal finances be sought to prove a fraud claim when not pleaded | Financial records could prove reliance and funding arrangements. | Records outside the pleadings should not be discoverable absent relevance. | No, not discoverable at this stage. |
| Is certiorari appropriate for a discovery order | Certiorari is appropriate when discovery order departs from law and causes irreparable harm. | Not necessary where records are relevant and properly discoverable. | Certiorari appropriate to quash the order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995) (relevance governs discovery with potential irreparable harm if improper)
- Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 868 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2003) (discovery must be limited to information necessary to determine issues)
- All About Cruises, Inc. v. Cruise Options, Inc., 889 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (relevance of financial records depends on pleadings; no irreparable harm if discovery ordered)
- Capco Properties, LLC v. Monterey Gardens of Pinecrest Condominium, 982 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (personal financial information generally discoverable only in aid of execution; lack of alleged relevance)
- O’Barry v. Ocean World, S.A., 17 So.3d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (certiorari granted when no established relevance of financial information)
- Spry v. Prof'l Emp’r Plans, 985 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (certiorari granted when no relevance shown for financial discovery)
- Krypton Broad. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 629 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (discovery must relate to issues framed by pleadings)
- Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (protective order should be granted when pleadings show no relatedness)