IRA SCOT SILVERSTEIN, LLC, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
ELIDE KUBE, 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.
The court held that the requested documents are protected by the litigation privilege and should not be produced.
Petitioner law firm, representing lenders in foreclosures, was served with a request for production of retainer agreements, fee affidavits, pleadings,…
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 Litigation Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Ira Scot Silverstein, LLC n/k/a Ira Scot Silverstein, PLLC petitions for a writ of certiorari in connection with the trial court’s denial of its Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Protective Order regarding production of documents. We grant the petition because the ordering of the production of the requested documents constitutes a departure from an essential element of the law, would cause material harm and could not be rectified on appeal. Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. 2010); Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995).
Petitioner is a law firm which has represented several lenders in numerous foreclosure actions. Respondent was a defendant in one such foreclosure action. In connection with an Affirmative Defense, Respondent served a Request for Production seeking copies of all of Petitioner’s retainer agreements, with, the lenders it had represented from May 2013 to May 2016. Respondent also sought copies of all affidavits of attorney’s, fees filed by Petitioner for the same time period as well as all pleadings identifying Petitioner as counsel of record and all final judgments awarding fees to the plaintiffs therein. Respondent also sought copies of all checks representing payment of the fees from the lenders.
Respondent is not entitled to production of any such documents from Petitioner -by virtue of the litigation privilege. Any action taken by Petitioner in connection with its representation of clients in unrelated foreclosure actions is. protected by the privilege and its contracts and communications relating to such representation .are likewise protected in the context of the claim *956made here. Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 386 (Fla. 2007). We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order below.
Petition Granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)
- Echevarria v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007)