Civil
procedure — Discovery — Attorney-client privilege — Trial court departed
from essential requirements of law by compelling party and party’s counsel to
produce specific e-mail string between the two without affording evidentiary
hearing to address claim of privilege and why crime-fraud exception precluded
use of that privilege, as respondent countered

 

MICHAEL BRANNON, PSY.D., and AMLONG & AMLONG, P.A., Petitioners, v.
DANIEL PALCU and STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. 4th District. Case No.
4D15-894. October 28, 2015. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit
Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel,
Judge; L.T. Case No. 06-4892 CF10A. Counsel: William R. Amlong, Jennifer Daley
and Alison Churly-Davis, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners. Alan R. Soven of Law
Offices of Alan R. Soven, Miami, for respondent Daniel Palcu.

 

(PER CURIAM.) Petitioners, Dr. Michael Brannon and Amlong and Amlong, the
law firm that represents him, seek certiorari review of the trial court’s order
compelling them to produce a specific e-mail string between the two, which the
court set aside from discovery in a sealed envelope. Respondent, Daniel Palcu,
sought the information to demonstrate that Dr. Brannon perpetuated a fraud or
obstructed justice when he testified in respondent’s criminal case.

 

Petitioners argued to the trial court that the communication was protected
as an attorney-client communication. § 90.502, Fla. Stat. (2015). Respondent
countered that the crime-fraud exception precluded petitioners’ use of that
privilege. § 90.502(4)(a). The trial court conducted in camera review of
many documents, including the e-mail string, and ordered that it be produced.
Petitioners seek review, arguing that the trial court was required to conduct
an evidentiary hearing before ordering the production.

 

We grant the petition, quash the order, and direct the trial court to
conduct an evidentiary hearing. Merco Grp. of the Palm Beaches, Inc. v.
McGregor, 162 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); BNP Paribas v. Wynne,
967 So. 2d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697
So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As we explained in the above cited cases, the
failure to afford petitioners an evidentiary hearing to address that document
and argue why that exception should not apply is a departure from the essential
requirements of law. Merco Grp., 162 So. 2d at 51, BNP Paribas, 967
So. 2d at 1068; Am. Tobacco, 697 So. 2d at 1256-57.

Petition granted; Order quashed. (MAY, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.)