Rousso v. Hannon
146 So. 3d 66
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mirmelli sues Hannon over confidentiality/non-circumvention agreement related to parking lots; Rousso and Alhadeff are non-parties unrelated to the litigation.
- Hannon seeks discovery of Rousso’s financial records and Rousso–Alhadeff communications to investigate the underlying transaction.
- Rousso and Alhadeff move for protective order arguing irrelevance, privacy, and potential attorney-client privilege; trial court denies protective order.
- Petition for writ of certiorari filed to challenge the discovery order as departing from law and causing irreparable harm to non-parties.
- Court examines whether non-party confidential financial information and attorney communications should be discoverable, balancing relevance against privacy and privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court departed from essential law by compelling non-party discovery | Rousso/Alhadeff contend discovery violates privacy and privilege and is not relevant to pleadings. | Hannon asserts the financials and communications are potentially relevant to the transaction and proper discovery. | Yes; order quashed for departures from essential law. |
| Whether confidentiality agreements can shield non-party privacy in discovery | Confidentiality agreements can mitigate harm and make discovery acceptable. | Confidentiality does not authorize discovering confidential records to non-parties with no right to them. | Confidentiality alone cannot justify non-party disclosure; need outweighing privacy interest. |
| Whether non-party financial records are discoverable when pleadings do not establish relevance | Financial records may reveal connections supporting Mirmelli’s alleged damages. | Records are not relevant to the pleadings and would invade privacy without necessity. | Not discoverable; records do not satisfy necessary-relevance threshold. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, 104 So.3d 344 (Fla.2012) (certiorari requires departure from essential requirements of law and irreparable injury)
- Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. American Educ. Enters., 99 So.3d 450 (Fla.2012) (protective orders and confidentiality can limit discovery; essential for certiorari review)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995) (some discovery errors are reviewable on certiorari when irreparable harm)
- Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis’ Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So.3d 620 (Fla.4th DCA 2009) (non-parties’ confidential information requires showing need outweighing privacy)
- Rappaport v. Mercantile Bank, 17 So.3d 902 (Fla.2d DCA 2009) (privacy interests in confidential information; certiorari context)
- Cordis Corp. v. O’Shea, 988 So.2d 1163 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (attorney-client privilege protections and disclosure scope)
- Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. v. Endicott, 81 So.3d 486 (Fla.1st DCA 2011) (limitations on discovery and confidentiality considerations)
- Berkeley v. Eisen, 699 So.2d 789 (Fla.4th DCA 1997) (attorney-client privilege and confidentiality principles in discovery)
- CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So.2d 434 (Fla.3d DCA 1994) (privilege and discovery limitations in third-party contexts)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hausman, 598 So.2d 223 (Fla.5th DCA 1992) (privilege boundaries and disclosure standards)
- Megaflight, Inc. v. Lamb, 749 So.2d 594 (Fla.5th DCA 2000) (treatment of confidential or privileged information in discovery on certiorari)
- Higgs v. Kampgrounds of America, 526 So.2d 980 (Fla.3d DCA 1988) (need outweighs privacy; Higgs balancing test)