SOUTHEAST ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, LLC, ETC.
v.
MARQUEL, INC., ETC.
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.
Southeast Enterprise Holdings, LLC petitioned for a writ of certiorari to challenge a circuit court order overruling its objections to a third-party subpoena issued by Marquel, Inc. Southeast contended the requested documents were overbroad and irrelevant. The court dismissed the petition, holding that overbreadth and irrelevance alone are insufficient grounds for certiorari relief absent a showing of privilege or other protected status.
Overbreadth and irrelevance alone are not sufficient bases for certiorari jurisdiction. Certiorari relief does not lie unless the petitioner demonstrates that the documents are privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure, or that the trial court ruling will cause irremediable harm on plenary appeal.
[1] Overbreadth and irrelevance of discovery requests alone are insufficient grounds for certiorari relief; the party seeking certiorari must demonstrate that the subpoenaed…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Overbreadth is not sufficient, nor is it a basis, for certiorari relief.”
Court's citation to Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. American Education Enterprises, LLC
Respondent Marquel, Inc. issued a third-party subpoena requesting documents from petitioner Southeast Enterprise Holdings, LLC. Southeast objected to …
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 Overly Broad Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 12, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-2280 Lower Tribunal No. 21-15370 ________________
Southeast Enterprise Holdings, LLC,
Petitioner,
vs.
Marquel, Inc., Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge. Anthony Lawhon, P.A., and Anthony M. Lawhon (Naples), for petitioner. Lorium Law, and Shay B. Cohen, and Craig A. Pugatch (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent. Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. MILLER, J.
Petitioner, Southeast Enterprise Holdings, LLC, seeks certiorari relief from an order overruling certain objections to a third-party subpoena issued by respondent, Marquel, Inc. Southeast contends the documents subject to disclosure are overbroad and irrelevant. It is well-settled that overbreadth and irrelevance alone are not bases on which certiorari jurisdiction should be granted. See Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ.
Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 456 (Fla. 2012) (“This Court and other district courts of appeal have restated with frequency that overbreadth is not sufficient, nor is it a basis, for certiorari relief.”); Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So. 3d 146, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citation omitted) (“Overbreadth of discovery alone is not a basis for certiorari jurisdiction. Similarly, mere irrelevance is not enough to justify certiorari relief.”). And here, Southeast has failed to demonstrate the documents subject to subpoena are privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Consequently, the record does not support the contention that the ruling by the trial court will inflict harm irremediable on plenary appeal, and certiorari does not lie. See Moore v. State, 135 So. 3d 462, 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
Writ dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)
- Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Moore v. State, 135 So. 3d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)