Heekin v. Del Col
60 So. 3d 437
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mr. Heekin faced an order to deposit $250,000 into the court registry after the court granted summary judgment to Respondents on their breach of fiduciary duty claim.
- The nonfinal order (June 8, 2009) gave Heekin 30 days to comply; he did not pay.
- Respondents moved to enforce the order and sought discovery of Heekin’s financial information.
- Heekin objected to the discovery requests and the hearing advised that he could be held in contempt, while Heekin claimed an inability to pay.
- The petition for certiorari review argued the discovery order departed from the essential requirements of law and caused irreparable harm; the court denied relief for lack of irreparable harm.
- The appellate court noted the underlying order remains in force despite no final judgment in the breach action, and previously dismissed Heekin’s appeal as premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certiorari is appropriate to review a discovery order | Heekin contends irreparable harm from disclosure | Court found no irreparable harm from the order | Denied certiorari; no irreparable harm shown |
| Whether irreparable harm can be established from discovery of financial information | Disclosing personal finances causes irreparable harm | Relevance to ability to pay and contempt; not irreparable harm absent privilege or privilege-like protections | No irreparable harm established for certiorari relief |
| Whether the discovery order was proper given relevance and ongoing contempt proceedings | Financial information is relevant to enforcment of the $250,000 order | Order compelling production is inappropriate for review if irreparable harm is not shown | Order not shown to depart from essential requirements; relief denied |
| Whether certiorari review is appropriate where final judgment is not yet entered | Order is part of proceedings leading to contempt judgment | Final judgment pending; irreparable harm analysis governs | Denied; no irreparable harm shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 975 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (two-step test for certiorari: departure from essential requirements and irreparable harm)
- Taylor v. TGI Friday's, Inc., 16 So.3d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (prima facie irreparable harm required for certiorari)
- In re Estate of Sauey, 869 So.2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (no irreparable harm from discovery absent other factors)