(LOGUE, Judge.) This appeal arises out of post-judgment collection efforts by
judgment creditors on a recorded judgment originally obtained in New York.
Appellants, who are third-party witnesses in the underlying proceedings, were
served with subpoenas for depositions duces tecum seeking broad categories of
documents in aid of execution. Appellants seek review of a trial court order
that denied their motions to shield themselves from all or part of the
discovery. In their reply brief, Appellants explained: “this appeal does not
seek review of a scope-of discovery ruling, but rather it seeks review of the
trial court’s ability in the first instance to enter a discovery order directed
to a non-party in a post-judgment pursuit of in-aid-of-execution
discovery — and where formal proceedings supplementary had yet to be
commenced.”

It is clear that “Rule 1.560 permits a judgment creditor to obtain discovery
in aid of execution from any person in the manner provided in the Rules
of Civil Procedure.” Albert v. Hartford Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 423
So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (emphasis added); see also
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.560(a). We note that the parties have already entered into a
confidentiality agreement and that “[t]rial courts have broad discretion in
controlling discovery and in issuing protective orders.” Katzman v. Rediron
Fabrication, Inc., 76 So. 3d 1060, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Given the
evidence presented, the trial judge could find that there was a sufficient
relationship between Appellants and the judgment debtor to justify the records
requested. It was therefore within the discretion of the trial judge to allow
the discovery to go forward.

Affirmed.