SYLVIA FOX, PETITIONER,
v.
MILTON KELNER, RESPONDENT
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.
A party may properly assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during discovery if responses could incriminate them.
Petitioner Sylvia Fox sought review of an order compelling discovery in supplementary proceedings. Fox asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege against …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Sylvia Fox (Fox), petitions for certiorari review of an order compelling discovery in proceedings supplementary brought by respondent, Milton Kelner. We treat this petition as an appeal from a non-final post-judgment order, and reverse and remand. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4), 9.040(c).
Fox challenges the order compelling discovery based on her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. We agree that Fox may properly assert the privilege. This court recognized in Rainerman v. Eagle National Bank of Miami, 541 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), that the privilege against self-incrimination may be properly asserted by a party during discovery proceedings where the party has “reasonable grounds to believe” that the responses “would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him.”
Having reviewed the record and the argument of the parties, we conclude that any of Fox’s responses may tend to incriminate her. Therefore, Fox is entitled to assert the privilege. Accordingly, the order compelling discovery is reversed and the cause is remanded.