Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

May 20, 2016 by admin

Torts — Discovery — Financial information — Net worth of defendant

41 Fla. L. Weekly D1169cTop of Form

Torts
— Discovery — Financial information — Net worth of defendant — Trial court
improperly ordered production of financial information related to defendant’s
non-party husband — Court also improperly ordered production of copies of bank
statements received by defendant

TINA ROSEN, Petitioner, v. JASON MCCOBB, Respondent. 4th
District. Case No. 4D15-3355. May 18, 2016. Petition for writ of certiorari to
the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Donald
W. Hafele, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014CA007117XXXXMB. Counsel: Kara Berard
Rockenbach of Methe & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
John A. Willis of Willis Law, P.A., Boca Raton and Steven M. Goldsmith of
Steven M. Goldsmith, P.A., Boca Raton, for respondent.

(PER CURIAM.) The defendant petitions this Court for a writ
of certiorari, challenging an order that overruled her objections to net worth
interrogatories and requests to produce.1 We grant the petition in part and
deny in part.

Following an altercation, the plaintiff filed a personal
injury action alleging claims for assault and both intentional and negligent
infliction of severe emotional distress. The defendant counterclaimed for
unjust enrichment and civil battery. The trial court granted a motion for leave
to add a punitive damages claim.

The plaintiff then served the defendant with a request to
produce documents concerning her net worth. The defendant responded and
objected to paragraphs 4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16, 19-21, 23-31, and 33-34, arguing
the plaintiff sought financial information of third parties in violation of
their privacy rights. The plaintiff also propounded net worth interrogatories.
The defendant lodged similar objections because the requested information
included assets held both by her individually and jointly with her husband.

The trial court heard the objections and entered an order
overruling them and directing the defendant to answer all outstanding net worth
discovery in thirty days. From this order, the defendant seeks certiorari
review. The trial court stayed the proceedings pending the disposition of the
petition.

We issued an order to show cause regarding the following
requests for production:

4.
Copies of any and all bank statements received by the [d]efendant from January,
2012 through the present.

6.
All passbooks or certificates of deposit or copies thereof for any savings
account or certificates of deposit which you have maintained in any bank or
savings institution during the last 3 years to date hereof.

7.
All bank statements for every checking account on which you have been
authorized to write checks during the last 3 years to date hereof.

9.
A copy of the trust instrument for any trust for which you are a trustee or
beneficiary or were a trustee or beneficiary in the last 3 years to date
hereof.

12.
All insurance policies on your life which are presently in force, whether owned
by you or any corporation in which you are an officer, director or stockholder
or employee.

16.
All correspondence, promissory notes, contracts or other writings, or copies
hereof which show or document any monies which you presently owe to any other
person or monies you owe to any other person regardless of whether said monies
are still due and owing, during the past 3 years to date hereof.

26.
Copies of all applications for credit or loans from any bank, credit union,
lending institution, issuer of credit cards and any financial statements prepared
by or on your behalf within the past 3 years to date hereof.

28.
Copies of any corporate tax returns for all corporations in which you were or
are a stockholder during any part of the years 2012 through 2014 inclusive.

29.
Copies of any partnership tax returns filed by you or on your behalf in the
last 3 years to date hereof.

Having received a response, we now grant the petition in
part.

To succeed in obtaining a writ of certiorari, the petitioner
must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting
in material harm of an irreparable nature. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Total Rehab
& Med. Ctrs., Inc.
, 123 So. 3d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Where “a
discovery order potentially requires the disclosure of personal information
subject to privacy restrictions on dissemination, including names and addresses
of non-parties to a lawsuit,” irreparable harm exists. Sovereign Healthcare
of Port St. Lucie, LLC v. Fernandes
, 132 So. 3d 855, 857 (Fla. 4th DCA
2013).

The privacy right of non-parties arises from Article 1,
section 23 of the Florida Constitution. Florida also recognizes a party’s right
to discover financial information when related to issues in the case. Bd. of
Trs. of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC
, 99 So.
3d 450, 457-58 (Fla. 2012). We recognize the trial court’s “broad discretion in
controlling discovery and in balancing ‘the right to privacy and the right to
know.’ ” Elsner v. E-Commerce Coffee Club, 126 So. 3d 1261, 1263 (Fla.
4th DCA 2013) (quoting Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc.,
863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla. 2003)).

The defendant argues that the trial court’s order compelling
financial discovery, including information related to her non-party husband,
constitutes an abuse of discretion. She is willing to produce documentation and
information on her interests in individually owned and jointly-owned assets.
But, she argues the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a relevant or compelling
reason to order discovery of her husband’s private financial net worth
information. She further argues the court should have conducted an in camera
inspection to determine whether the documents are relevant to her financial
interests and the punitive damages claim.

The defendant agrees that requests 28 and 29 are overbroad
and “might result in the production of documents that do not necessarily relate
to the defendant’s net worth.” He suggests that the requests were aimed at the
returns of closely-held corporations and partnerships which the plaintiff
either owned individually or jointly with her husband. We therefore grant the
petition as to requests 28 and 29.

We further grant the petition as to request 4 because it
broadly requests “[c]opies of any and all bank statements received by
the [d]efendant from January, 2012 through the present.” (Emphasis added). The
issue here is the plaintiff’s assets, not what bank statements she received in
the mail or otherwise. We therefore grant the petition as to request 4.

We have previously rejected a per se rule that an in camera
inspection is required before ruling on a discovery objection. Elsner,
126 So. 3d at 1264. Elsner construed the law to require an evidentiary
hearing only where there was no evidence to support the relevance of the
discovery sought. Id. at 1263. Such an inspection would not be required
here because relevance has already been established.

In conclusion, we deny the petition for certiorari with
respect to production of documents paragraphs 1-3, 5-27, and 30-34. We grant
the petition with respect to paragraphs 4, 28, and 29.

Petition granted in part; denied in part. (TAYLOR,
MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1The petition is limited to the
request for production and raises no issue regarding the interrogatories.

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
  • Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages
  • Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence
  • Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied
  • Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982