LOTTI MEIER, PETITIONER,
v.
JURG ANDREAS MEIER, 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.
In a dissolution of marriage case, the Florida District Court of Appeal granted certiorari review and held that an attorney must comply with court-ordered discovery by producing documents for in-camera inspection, even over the client's objection, where the client has deliberately and repeatedly defied discovery orders.
A trial court has the authority to order an attorney to produce documents for in-camera inspection despite the client's instructions to the contrary, particularly where the client has deliberately and repeatedly defied court-ordered discovery and the documents are needed to determine marital assets.
[1] A trial court has the authority to order a party's counsel to produce discovery documents for an in-camera inspection, even against the client's wishes, when the client h…
[2] A lawyer violates ethical rules by intentionally failing to comply with a legally proper discovery request from an opposing party.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The husband's conduct constitutes an unjustified and deliberate disregard of the court's authority. The husband's counsel's obligation to comply with the orders is thus absolute.”
Establishes that an attorney cannot shield documents from court orders based on client instructions when the client has deliberately violated discovery orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLotti Meier filed for dissolution of marriage against Jurg Andreas Meier in 2001. The husband moved to Switzerland and repeatedly failed to comply wit…
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 Motion To Compel Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Lotti Meier seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s denial of her motion to compel counsel for her former husband to produce discovery documents for an in-camera inspection. We grant the petition.
The wife filed for dissolution of marriage in 2001. Shortly after the wife filed for divorce, the husband respondent Jurg An-dreas Meier moved to his native Switzerland where he now resides.
On three separate occasions, the trial court ordered the husband to produce certain documents. The husband did not comply with the discovery orders and the trial court struck his pleadings and entered a default against him. Subsequently, the wife learned that the husband had provided discovery documentation to his counsel and had also instructed him not to release the documentation to the wife, to return the documentation to him.
The wife again moved to compel the production of documents and to compel the husband’s counsel to produce the documentation to the trial court for an in-camera inspection. The trial court denied the motion finding that it did not have the authority to order the husband’s counsel to turn over the documents against the will of his client, and thereby subject the husband’s counsel to a disciplinary action. The documentation the wife seeks remains in the possession of the husband’s counsel.
Rule 4-3.4(d), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, prohibits the intentional failure to comply with a discovery request. Rule 4-3.4 provides, in pertinent part,
A lawyer shall not:
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.
(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party, (emphasis added).
Rule 4-3.4(a), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, also prohibits a lawyer’s unlawful obstruction of another party’s access to evidence and the concealment of a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending proceeding.
The husband in this case has failed to comply with several orders of discovery and the husband’s counsel plainly has the ability to do so. The wife seeks the discoverable documentation to determine the extent of the parties’ assets and she is unlikely to obtain the documents’ equivalent through other means. Under these circumstances, the husband’s conduct constitutes an unjustified and deliberate disregard of the court’s authority. The husband’s counsel’s obligation to comply with the orders is thus absolute. To hold otherwise not only disregards the authority of a court, but defies the importance of promoting the truth-seeking function of the discovery rules.
We therefore quash the order under review. Counsel for the husband is to release the documentation in his possession to the trial court for an in-camera review.
Petition granted.