43
Fla. L. Weekly D63aTop of Form

Appeals
— Certiorari — Petitioners, who alleged trial court departed from essential
requirements of law in denying motion for directed verdict and renewed motion
for directed verdict in bifurcated trial on liability and further alleged that
discovery requests propounded by plaintiff with trial on damages pending sought
privileged information, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that cannot be
remedied in plenary appeal following trial on damages

VICKEN BEDOYAN and WPM MIAMI, INC.,
Petitioners, vs. HAROUT SAMRA, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D17-1382.
L.T. Case No. 14-22854. Opinion filed December 27, 2017. On Petition for Writ
of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas,
Judge. Counsel: Gunster, and Angel A. Cortiñas and Jonathan H. Kaskel, for
petitioners. Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, and Jose M. Ferrer
and Desiree Fernandez, for respondent.

(Before SUAREZ, LOGUE and SCALES,
JJ.)

(SCALES, J.) In this petition for
writ of certiorari, Vicken Bedoyan and WPM Miami, Inc., co-defendants below,
argue that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law
in denying their motion for directed verdict and renewed motion for directed
verdict, where the jury entered a verdict in favor of Harout Samra, the
plaintiff below, on liability at a bifurcated trial.1 In light of the jury verdict, and
with a trial on damages pending, Samra propounded discovery requests that the
petitioners argue seek information and communications that are protected by the
accountant-client privilege.2 3 Because the petitioners have not
demonstrated irreparable harm that cannot be remedied in a plenary appeal
following the trial on damages, we lack jurisdiction to hear, and therefore
dismiss, the instant petition. See Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers
Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (recognizing
that “a petitioner must establish that an interlocutory order creates material
harm irreparable by postjudgment appeal before this court has power to
determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of the
law”).4

Petition for writ of certiorari
dismissed.

__________________

1In the
liability portion of the case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Samra
finding that: (i) Samra and Bedoyan had formed a partnership in 2009; (ii)
Bedoyan had breached the partnership agreement; and (iii) WPM Miami, Inc. was a
partnership asset.

2Samra
initially also sought communications that the petitioners argue are protected
by the attorney-client privilege. Samra has since agreed not to seek any
attorney-client communications as part of his discovery efforts. Therefore,
only the accountant-client privilege is at issue here.

3It bears
noting that, after the jury’s verdict on liability, Bedoyan and WPM Miami, Inc.
produced several hundred pages of documents from the accountant’s file which,
pursuant to the parties’ agreed confidentiality order, may be viewed only by
Samra’s counsel and experts and no one else. In our view, the provisions of
this agreed confidentiality order adequately protect the petitioners from the
“cat out of the bag” discovery that the petitioners argue exposes them to
irreparable harm. See, e.g., Bestechnologies, Inc. v. Trident Envtl.
Sys., Inc., 681 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (denying certiorari
when the trial court has, in the appellate court’s view, taken reasonable steps
to preserve confidentiality).

4We express
no opinion as to the merits of the petitioners’ claims that the trial court
erred in denying their motion for directed verdict and renewed motion for
directed verdict.

* * *