Forrest v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc.
73 So. 3d 269
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Group represented nonparties Morlon in a mortgage foreclosure against Deutsche Bank.
- NTC employees' video depositions were sought by Forrest to defend the Morlons; the depositions were taken without court-imposed limits.
- Defendants sought a protective order; circuit court allowed depositions to proceed and later, Forrest posted some depositions on YouTube.
- Plaintiffs moved for sanctions and confidentiality; they argued posting invaded privacy and risked harassment.
- A temporary injunction restricted posting and required removal of certain videos; bond status was not set at issue in the order.
- Appellants challenged the injunction on First Amendment grounds and bond grounds; the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the temporary injunction a prior restraint on speech? | Forrest argued it infringed First Amendment rights. | Appellees argued it prevented abuse of discovery and was permissible. | Not a unconstitutional prior restraint; allowed to prevent discovery abuse. |
| Was a bond required for the temporary injunction? | Bond should be required under Rule 1.610(b). | Bond may be unnecessary due to physical injury exception. | Bond was required; court erred in not setting one. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1984) (protective orders limit dissemination of discovery information; not a classic prior restraint)
- Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (U.S. 1931) (classic prior restraint doctrine)
- Post-Newsweek Stations Orlando, Inc. v. Guetzloe, 968 So.2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (First Amendment scrutiny for temporary injunctions in some contexts)
- Mander v. Hollis, 932 So.2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (bond requirement for temporary injunctions; nominal bonds not acceptable)
- Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Burk, 504 So.2d 378 (Fla. 1987) ( Seattle Times discussion relevant to discovery and public access)
- United Farm Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Corp., 681 So.2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (procedural considerations for protective measures in injunctions)