BEATRIZ ESTRADA AND BUYSMART INSURANCE, INC.,
v.
CARLOS CHIRINOS,
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 petition for certiorari to challenge a discovery order must demonstrate irreparable harm that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal; petitioners' claims of overbreadth and sensitivity of financial information, without showing such irreparable harm, are insufficient to warrant certiorari relief.
[1] To obtain certiorari relief, a petitioner must establish three elements: a departure from the essential requirements of law, material injury for the remainder of the case…
[2] A party's financial documents and information are not excepted from discovery when relevant to the disputed issues of the underlying action, and courts will compel produc…
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“A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary type of relief that is granted in very limited circumstances.”
Establishes the high threshold for obtaining certiorari relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEstrada and Buysmart Insurance sought certiorari to challenge a trial court order requiring production of ten years of financial documents and records…
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 Shareholder Standing cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1268 Lower Tribunal No. 18-35789 ________________
Beatriz Estrada and Buysmart Insurance, Inc., Petitioners,
vs.
Carlos Chirinos, Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami- Dade County, Alan S. Fine, Judge.
AV Professional Association, and Alba Varela, for petitioners.
Law Offices of Gold & Parado, and James L. Parado and Alan C. Gold, for respondent.
Before EMAS, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
HENDON, J.
2
Beatriz Estrada and Buysmart Insurance, Inc. seek a petition for certiorari directed to the order of the lower court denying their motion for a protective order and requiring them to provide certain discovery to the Respondent, Carlos Chirinos, subsequent to a court-ordered confidentiality agreement. The Petitioners assert that the ordered discovery is irrelevant, overbroad, and will disclose sensitive financial business information. We find that the Petitioners have not demonstrated the threshold material harm that cannot be remedied on appeal and dismiss the petition.
“A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary type of relief that is granted in very limited circumstances.” Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). To be entitled to certiorari, the petitioner is required to establish the following three elements: “(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.” Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)). The “irreparable harm” elements are jurisdictional. “If the jurisdictional prongs of the standard three-part test are not fulfilled, then the petition should be dismissed” as certiorari does not lie. Am. Prime Title Servs., LLC v. Wang, No. 3D20- 1153, 2021 WL 358605, at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb.3, 2021) (citing Parkway
The Petitioners contend that the trial court’s order requiring them to disclose ten years’ worth of Buysmart’s deposit slips and bank statements “with the names of non-party customers seeking insurance from Buysmart and/or its customer list” is a “cat out of the bag” discovery that would cause irreparable harm to the Petitioners. This, however, is not what the discovery order says. The discovery order requires the Petitioners to produce all financial documents and records evidencing financial transactions between Estrada, Chirinos, and Buysmart from October 22, 2011 to the present, including, but not limited to, bank statements, credit card statements, canceled checks, deposits, receipts, distributions, contributions of capital,
1 The trial court bifurcated the case, first proceeding on discovery related to Chirinos’ status as shareholder in order to determine his standing to maintain the suit, and then to proceed, or not, with damages discovery once the shareholder standing issue was resolved. The Petitioners’ arguments regarding an accounting are related to the damages phase and are therefore premature.
Further, the Petitioners’ overbreadth claim is not sufficient nor is it a basis for certiorari relief. Bd. of Trustees of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 456 (Fla. 2012); Killinger v. Guardianship of Grable, 983 So. 2d 30, 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“While certiorari may be used to review pre-trial orders compelling discovery, it is generally not appropriate simply based on an argument that the discovery request is overbroad, irrelevant, or burdensome.”).
Because the record fails to show that the Petitioners demonstrated the required threshold irreparable harm to support certiorari relief, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Petition dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)
- Williams v. Keith Robinson Oken, M.D., 62 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011)
- Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)
- Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Inst. OF Port ST. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003)
- Elsner v. E-Commerce Coffee Club, 126 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Harvey v. State, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Rhea Killinger v. Guardianship OF Hazel Ione Grable, 983 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)