BRIAN NEIMAN, AND THE FORMULA, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
FARHAN NASEER, KASHIF SHAUKAT, AND SONA PATEL, RESPONDENTS
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.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal denied a petition by judgment debtors seeking to quash a subpoena for settlement fund information, holding that the information was not protected by attorney-client privilege and that confidentiality agreements cannot be used to thwart discovery in supplementary proceedings.
The information was not protected by attorney-client privilege because it was known to the other party to the settlement agreement. Additionally, confidentiality agreements cannot be used to thwart discovery in supplementary proceedings.
[1] An order denying a motion for a protective order and to quash a subpoena duces tecum in aid of execution is not reviewable as a non-final order under Florida Rule of Appe…
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari may be used to review trial court orders compelling discovery of information claimed to be privileged or confidential, where such compul…
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“While confidentiality agreements are necessary in some instances, to facilitate settlement, they may not be subsequently employed by a litigant to ... thwart an opponent's discovery.”
Establishes the key holding that confidentiality agreements cannot be used to block discovery in supplementary proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring supplementary proceedings to collect a judgment, the creditors served a subpoena duces tecum on the judgment debtors' counsel seeking informati…
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 Post-Judgment Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
The judgment debtors appeal from a post-judgment order denying their motion for protective order and to quash a subpoena duces tecum for deposition in aid of execution served on their counsel during supplementary proceedings. The subpoena sought information about settlement funds paid to one of the judgment debtors in an unrelated lawsuit. The judgment debtors primarily argued that the information sought was protected by the attorney-client privilege and was subject to a confidentiality agreement in the settlement.
The order is not reviewable as a non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4). See Gaché v. First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla., 625 So.2d 86, 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (order requiring post-judgment production of financial information was not appealable where the ultimate order providing for a recovery by the judgment creditor would be appealable as a final judgment, and the judgment debtor would then have the opportunity to argue the correctness of the discovery order). However, the order would be reviewable if the judgment debtors filed a petition for writ of certiorari. See Toledo v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 30 So.3d 712, 714 (Fla. *9554th DCA 2010) (citation omitted) (certiora-ri lies to review trial court orders compelling production of discovery claimed to be privileged or otherwise confidential, as this would present the potential of a departure from the essential requirements of the law which would cause material harm for which there is no adequate remedy on final appeal).
Treating the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, we agree with the circuit court that the information sought was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information was known to the other party to the settlement agreement in the unrelated lawsuit. We also agree that “[w]hile confidentiality agreements are necessary in some instances, to facilitate settlement, they may not be subsequently employed by a litigant to ... thwart an opponent’s discovery.” Smith v. TIB Bank of the Keys, 687 So.2d 895, 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We reject the judgment debtors’ other arguments without further comment.
Petition denied.
MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. v. Ziegler, 219 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
Authorities Cited
- GACHÉ v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 625 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Smith v. TIB Bank OF THE Keys, 687 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Toledo v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 30 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)