Haas v. State
196 So. 3d 515
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Physicians Group and W.S. Media sued Dr. Jeffrey Lauffer alleging theft of confidential patient and proprietary records; Lauffer retained the law firm Haas, Lewis, DiFiore, P.A. (HLD) and provided the firm with documents, some not marked confidential.
- The trial court entered multiple confidentiality orders and an injunction (March 2013) deeming documents provided by Lauffer confidential even if not bearing discovery designations; later a November 25, 2013 order directed HLD to return documents “received in this lawsuit that bear a Confidential notation or Attorneys Eyes Only notation.”
- HLD withdrew as trial counsel in September 2013 but continued to represent Lauffer on appeal of the injunction; confusion and timing problems led to an unsealed appendix filed in the Second DCA on December 23, 2013 that included some confidential documents later sealed by the court.
- Physicians Group brought indirect criminal contempt charges against two HLD attorneys (Haas and DiFiore) and the Firm, alleging: (Count 1) filing confidential exhibits unsealed in the appellate appendix; (Count 2) retaining confidential documents after the return order; (Count 3) omitting documents from a privilege log.
- The trial court found Haas guilty on Counts Two and Three and DiFiore guilty on Counts One and Two (Firm later vacated); sentenced both to withheld adjudication, fines, probation, and community service; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing an unsealed appendix containing confidential exhibits was criminal contempt | DiFiore willfully filed confidential materials publicly to disseminate them in violation of court orders | DiFiore filed under time pressure to preserve the appeal, intended to seek sealing promptly, lacked intent to disobey orders | Reversed — no competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt that DiFiore intended to disobey the court order; guilty finding on Count One vacated |
| Whether retaining documents on Dec. 23, 2013 violated the November 25 return order | Haas/DiFiore retained confidential materials in violation of the order and thus were in contempt | The return order required return only of documents "received in this lawsuit" bearing Confidential or AEO notations; HLD returned those and retained unmarked documents received from their client and for appellate purposes | Reversed — order language was not violated; contempt cannot be based on "spirit" of order; guilty findings on Count Two vacated |
| Whether omission of certain documents from the privilege log was willful contempt | Haas intentionally omitted documents (including WSV emails/attachments) to conceal privileged materials | Omission was inadvertent oversight; Haas solicited and requested documents and would not benefit from omission; produced materials later in subpoena response | Reversed — plaintiff failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Haas acted with intent to disobey; guilty finding on Count Three vacated as to Haas |
| Whether private counsel for Plaintiffs improperly prosecuted contempt (procedural fairness) | (Raised by defendants on appeal) Plaintiffs’ counsel prosecuted contempt without formal appointment or disqualification of opposing counsel | Defendants argued this was fundamental error affecting fairness of prosecution | Court did not reach this argument because reversal on merits rendered it unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Pinellas Cty., 483 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (definition of contempt and intent inference)
- Thomson v. State, 398 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (intent can be inferred from acts and circumstances)
- Parisi v. Broward Cty., 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000) (intent to violate an order is required in criminal contempt)
- Roberts v. Bonati, 133 So. 3d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (discussing intent element in contempt cases)
- Smith v. State, 954 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (intent must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Reder v. Miller, 102 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (contempt requires violation of the letter, not the spirit, of an order)
- Menke v. Wendell, 188 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (clarifies that orders must be explicit to support contempt)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 932 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (contempt judgment must be supported by competent, substantial evidence)
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) (appellate record adequacy and consequences of missing appendix)
- Metzler v. Metzler, 779 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (same; appellate practice consequences)