Gibson v. Progress Bank of Florida
54 So. 3d 1058
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Progress Bank sued Axiom Worldwide, L.L.C.; Nicholas Exarhos; and James J. Gibson, Jr. on a $4 million loan guarantee.
- Progress Bank filed motions for summary judgment and prejudgment writs of attachment and garnishment in February 2010.
- The trial court granted the prejudgment writs in February 2010, which the Defendants appealed in 2D10-1316.
- While the nonfinal appeal was pending, the trial court entered final summary judgment against Axiom and the guarantors in March 2010.
- Progress Bank sought postjudgment discovery from nonparty Petitioners (family of Mr. Gibson) and Lori Gibson for documents.
- The Petitioners sought protective orders and challenged the validity of the final judgment as void, arguing lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the final summary judgment void for entering during a pending nonfinal appeal? | Petitioners contend judgment violates Rule 9.130(f) and is void. | Bank contends final judgment valid despite pending appeal. | Final judgment void; lack of jurisdiction; order quashed. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying a protective order against discovery from nonparties? | Petitioners' financial records are unrelated to the pending action and private. | Bank seeks discovery to aid execution of judgment. | Court departed from law; protective order should have been granted. |
| If the judgment is void, does general discovery apply to nonparties in the pending action? | Nonparties' information is irrelevant to the pending action. | Discovery from nonparties is permissible to obtain relevant information. | Void judgment means general discovery rules apply; nonparties not subject to discovery absent relevance. |
| Should the scope of discovery involving Lori Gibson be reconsidered if issues arise again? | Scope should be limited given the void status and privacy concerns. | Discovery scope should remain broad to uncover pertinent information. | Trial court should reexamine scope if issues involving Ms. Gibson arise again. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rappaport v. Mercantile Bank, 17 So.3d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (certiorari review applicable to discovery orders; essential requirements)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995) (standard for certiorari to review discovery orders)
- Bemben v. Chock, 938 So.2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (void final judgments entered during interlocutory appeal)
- McKenna v. Camino Real Vill. Ass’n, 8 So.3d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (final judgment entered without jurisdiction while nonfinal appeal pending)
- Walter v. Page, 638 So.2d 1030 (Fla.2d DCA 1994) (protective orders and privacy considerations in discovery)
- Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So.2d 1027 (Fla.4th DCA 1998) (privacy and irreparable harm considerations in discovery disputes)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (irreparable harm as a factor in preliminary relief)