ALBA VARELA, ESQ.,
v.
OLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Fla. 3d DCA | 2019-08-21
No. 18-1135
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2019)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The appellate court held that a trial court abused its discretion by ordering a nonparty attorney to produce documents without first conducting an in camera hearing to determine if they were protected by attorney-client privilege. The court reversed the trial court's orders and remanded for the necessary hearing.

Holding

Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an in camera hearing to determine if the subpoenaed documents were protected by attorney-client privilege before ordering their production.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by ordering the production of documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege without first conducting an in camera hea…

[2] A nonparty's appeal from an order compelling discovery that ends all judicial labor as to that nonparty is a final, appealable order.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Key Quotes

“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”

Establishes the appellate court's primary finding of error.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

OLA Condominium Association subpoenaed nonparty attorney Alba Varela for a deposition and to produce numerous documents. Varela moved for a protective…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
In Camera Hearing Motion For Protective Order Final Appealable Order Motion To Compel

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse In Camera Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

EMAS, C.J.

OLA Condominium Association subpoenaed nonparty attorney Alba Varela to appear for a deposition in the instant cause. The subpoena further commanded her to produce at that deposition a number of files, records and documents in her possession, custody or control relating to several professional associations or limited liability companies. Varela filed a motion for protective order asserting, inter alia, that the subpoena duces tecum sought documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Association filed a motion to compel her compliance with the subpoena duces tecum. On April 26, 2018, the trial court denied Varela’s motion for protective order, and ordered Varela to appear at deposition within thirty days and to produce at that deposition all documents responsive to OLA Condominium’s subpoena. Varela’s appeal followed.1 We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Varela to produce the subpoenaed documents without first conducting an in camera hearing to address

Varela’s claim of attorney-client privilege.2 We reverse both trial court orders3 and remand for the trial court to conduct an in camera hearing to determine whether the documents sought by the subpoena duces tecum are in fact protected by the attorney-client privilege, and for further proceedings thereafter.4 Capital Bank, 689 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Alliant Ins. Servs. Inc. v. Riemer Ins. Grp., 22 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding: “If a party seeks to compel the disclosure of documents that the opposing party claims are protected by attorney-client privilege, the party claiming the privilege is entitled to an in camera review of the documents by the trial court prior to disclosure”).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Footnotes
1 We note that Varela properly sought review through a notice of appeal rather than a petition for certiorari in this case because she is not a party to the litigation below. The order on appeal ended all judicial labor in the case as to Varela and constitutes a final appealable order. See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A., 233 So. 3d 1224, 1230 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Florida House of Representatives v. Expedia, Inc., 85 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (noting order compelling discovery which adjudicates the rights of nonparties and otherwise meets the general test of finality is a final appealable order).
2 To the extent the trial court relied for its ruling upon testimony from a prior hearing at which Varela was neither present nor given notice and an opportunity to be heard, this too was error. See Jade Winds Ass’n, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 63 So. 3d 819, 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (noting: “A basic element of procedural due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard.”) 3 Two months after Varela filed her notice of appeal from the trial court’s April 26, 2018 order, the trial court rendered a second order, again directing Varela to appear for deposition within thirty days and to produce at that deposition the documents responsive to OLA Condominium’s subpoena duces tecum. Varela filed a separate notice of appeal from that order, and we have consolidated these two appeals. 4 We offer no opinion on the merits of Varela’s asserted claim of privilege or whether any such privilege has been waived.
4 See Del Carmen Calzon v.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw