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.