Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed September 6, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1235

Lower Tribunal No. 22-19395

________________

Bath & Kitchen Boutique, LLC,

Petitioner,

vs.

Alan Kent Little,

Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice 

Butchko, Judge.

Alexander Appellate Law, P.A., and Samuel Alexander (DeLand), for 

petitioner.

Barakat + Bossa, PLLC, and Alfredo E. Dally and Jocelyne A.

Macelloni, for respondent.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

BOKOR, J.
2

Bath & Kitchen Boutique, LLC, petitions this court for a writ of certiorari 

to quash an order granting certain requests for production of financial 

information. Bath & Kitchen Boutique argues that the financial discovery 

sought doesn’t relate to an issue in the case, doesn’t constitute permissible 

postjudgment financial discovery, and instead constitutes impermissible catout-of-the-bag financial discovery causing irreparable damage, for which 

there is no remedy on appeal. Based on the facts before us, we agree. 

Specifically, respondent Alan K. Little sought an ex parte prejudgment 

writ of garnishment pursuant to section 77.031, Florida Statutes. Little 

posted a bond and sought to garnish $35,000 from Bath & Kitchen Boutique’s 

checking and savings accounts at JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. JP Morgan 

responded, alerting the parties that it garnished the sum of $25,526.16, 

which represents the money contained in the two accounts at issue. Little 

then subpoenaed JP Morgan Chase Bank duces tecum, demanding: (1) a 

records custodian deposition along with the production of all records 

reviewed in preparation of the response to the prejudgment writ of 

garnishment; and (2) account statements for every account owned by Bath 

& Kitchen Boutique, including but not limited to the checking and savings 

accounts listed in the prejudgment writ of garnishment. Over objection, the 

trial court limited the subpoena to documents only. 
3

Certiorari relief lies where a trial court’s nonfinal order causes material 

and irreparable injury and departs from the essential requirements of the law.

Nader v. Fla. Dep’t. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712, 721 

(Fla. 2012). Discovery of private and confidential financial information often 

triggers certiorari proceedings. This is because the circumstances for which 

a party may obtain the other party’s financial information are limited, and any 

order granting discovery outside those limitations has long been considered 

impermissible cat-out-of-the-bag discovery for which certiorari relief lies.

See, e.g., ESJ JI Leasehold, LLC v. PJGWI, Inc., 337 So. 3d 115, 116 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2021) (explaining that certiorari lies to prevent cat-out-of-the-bag 

discovery of “financial information not relevant to the claims at issue”); see 

also Mana v. Cho, 147 So. 3d 1098, 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (same).

In general, financial discovery is permissible where it goes to the 

claims at issue, where there is a punitive damages claim, or where the 

parties are engaged in postjudgment proceedings. The need to “verify the 

accuracy of the Answer to the Writ of Garnishment” provides no basis to 

disturb or expand this well-worn rule on financial discovery. The bank 

provided a response, identified the two accounts requested by Little in the 

prejudgment writ of garnishment, and garnished the monies held therein. 

Based on nothing more than a desire to “verify” the response, Little then 
4

sought what he would not otherwise be entitled to—6 months of bank 

statements for the identified accounts (and any others that may exist but 

weren’t part of the prejudgment writ), providing not only account balances, 

but every transaction for the months of statements.

1 

A writ of prejudgment garnishment is a narrow tool. It stands to reason, 

therefore, that discovery directed to a superficially compliant third-party

financial institution can’t be used as a backdoor to quintessential cat-out-of1 Little’s argument that the financial discovery is at issue because of the 

prejudgment writ misses the mark and turns the analysis of relevance on its 

head. Little relies on Heekin v. Del Col, 60 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), 

for the proposition that there can’t be irreparable harm where the financial 

obligation is ordered by the court. But Little misapplies the holding to this 

situation. In Heekin, the trial court ordered Heekin to deposit $250,000 into 

the court registry. Id. at 438. When Heekin failed to comply, the respondent 

sought financial discovery. Id. Heekin argued that such discovery was 

improper, but the First District correctly explained that “Mr. Heekin’s ability to 

comply with the earlier order is squarely at issue, and the court needs

information about his income, assets and liabilities to determine whether 

contempt is appropriate.” Id. Little tries to analogize, explaining that financial 

discovery is at issue because if the garnishee failed to answer completely 

and fully, the garnishee may be liable for some of the debt owed. This fails 

for many reasons. First, in Heekin, the noncompliance of a party—Heekin—

triggered the financial discovery. Here, the bank complied with the 

garnishment request. Little seeks a fishing expedition into financial records 

based on nothing more than a supposed desire to confirm the bank’s 

compliance. Second, the bank is not a party here. While it is true that a 

garnishee has a duty to comply, Little provides no case indicating that the 

way to confirm compliance is to allow access to otherwise private financial 

information of a party to an action—financial documents that Little wouldn’t 

otherwise be entitled to in discovery based on the claims, defenses, and 

counterclaims in the lawsuit. 
5

the-bag financial discovery of a party, untethered to any issue or claim in the 

underlying case.2 Accordingly, we quash the order under review.

Petition granted; order quashed. 

2 Based on our narrow certiorari jurisdiction, we only address the order under 

review. See, e.g., Nat'l Advert. Co. v. Broward County, 491 So. 2d 1262, 

1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“A court's certiorari review power does not extend 

to directing that any particular action be taken, but is limited to denying the 

writ of certiorari or quashing the order reviewed.”). We therefore take no 

position on whether other, less invasive means of discovery exist or are 

warranted under the circumstances.