41 Fla. L. Weekly D926a
Top of Form
Civil
procedure — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of
law in ordering petitioner to reveal information regarding her cell phone —
Order violates petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights while her criminal case is
pending
procedure — Discovery — Trial court departed from essential requirements of
law in ordering petitioner to reveal information regarding her cell phone —
Order violates petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights while her criminal case is
pending
VIVIAN RESTREPO, Petitioner, vs. SEIDY CARRERA, Respondent.
3rd District. Case No. 3D15-1964. L.T. Case No. 14-23417. Opinion filed April
13, 2016. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Antonio Marin, Judge. Counsel: Bernstein, Chackman, Liss, and Neil Rose
(Hollywood), for petitioner. Ellsley Sobol, P.L., and Eric M. Ellsley
(Plantation), for respondent.
3rd District. Case No. 3D15-1964. L.T. Case No. 14-23417. Opinion filed April
13, 2016. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Antonio Marin, Judge. Counsel: Bernstein, Chackman, Liss, and Neil Rose
(Hollywood), for petitioner. Ellsley Sobol, P.L., and Eric M. Ellsley
(Plantation), for respondent.
(Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and SCALES, JJ.)
ON
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
(FERNANDEZ, Judge.) We grant respondent’s Motion for
Clarification, withdraw this Court’s previous opinion issued on January 20,
2016, and substitute the following opinion in its place:
Clarification, withdraw this Court’s previous opinion issued on January 20,
2016, and substitute the following opinion in its place:
Vivian Restrepo petitions this Court to review the trial
court’s order directing petitioner to “provide cell phone numbers and/or names
of providers used during the six (6) hour period before the time of the crash
and the six (6) hour period after the crash, same to be provided within thirty
(30) days from the date of this Order.” Upon review of the petition and based
on respondent’s concession of error that the trial court’s order directing
petitioner to reveal information regarding her cell phone violates petitioner’s
Fifth Amendment rights, while her criminal case is pending, and constitutes a
departure from the essential requirements of law from which petitioner has no
adequate remedy on appeal, we grant the petition and quash the order requiring
petitioner to provide information regarding her cell phone number and her cell
phone carrier. We express no opinion on the status of the petitioner’s Fifth
Amendment rights once her criminal case has concluded.
court’s order directing petitioner to “provide cell phone numbers and/or names
of providers used during the six (6) hour period before the time of the crash
and the six (6) hour period after the crash, same to be provided within thirty
(30) days from the date of this Order.” Upon review of the petition and based
on respondent’s concession of error that the trial court’s order directing
petitioner to reveal information regarding her cell phone violates petitioner’s
Fifth Amendment rights, while her criminal case is pending, and constitutes a
departure from the essential requirements of law from which petitioner has no
adequate remedy on appeal, we grant the petition and quash the order requiring
petitioner to provide information regarding her cell phone number and her cell
phone carrier. We express no opinion on the status of the petitioner’s Fifth
Amendment rights once her criminal case has concluded.
Petition granted; order quashed.
* *
*
*