Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed April 26, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-2058

Lower Tribunal No. 22-467

________________

MYI International, LLC,

Petitioner,

vs.

Blue Ocean Miami, Inc.,

Respondent.

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

Beatrice Butchko, Judge.

Karen B. Parker, P.A., and Karen B. Parker, for petitioner.

Gamardo, P.A., and Andres Gamardo, for respondent.

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

MILLER, J.
2

In this breach of promissory note lawsuit, petitioner, MYI International, 

LLC, the borrower, seeks certiorari review of a nonfinal order compelling the 

disclosure of financial discovery at the behest of respondent, Blue Ocean 

Miami, Inc., the lender. The unelaborated order, rendered without a hearing 

on a contended emergency basis, ostensibly rests upon a single superseded 

interrogatory answer stating that MYI failed to pay a “balance due as a direct 

and proximate cause of force majeure in that MYI suffered extreme financial 

duress brought on [by] the COVID-19 virus resulting in the shut[-]down of the 

business and a decline in the market.” After MYI amended its answer, 

removing all reference to financial hardship and admitting it “ha[d] not paid 

the principal amount of the Promissory Note,” Blue Ocean obtained an order 

compelling the production of all of MYI’s financial records on an emergency 

basis without a hearing. Because MYI was neither afforded adequate notice 

nor an opportunity to be heard, and the compelled discovery is vast in 

breadth and irrelevant to the issues framed in the pleadings and discovery,

we grant the petition and quash the order under review. See Allstate Ins. 

Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (quoting Martin-Johnson, Inc. 

v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 1987), superseded by statute on 

other grounds, § 768.72, Fla. Stat. (2021)) (“Discovery of certain kinds of 

information ‘may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable 
3

nature.’”); Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) 

(“Discovery is limited to those matters relevant to the litigation as framed by 

the parties’ pleadings.”); ESJ JI Leasehold, LLC v. PJGWI, Inc., 337 So. 3d 

115, 116–17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quoting Mana v. Cho, 147 So. 3d 1098, 

1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)) (“Allowing discovery of irrelevant . . . financial 

information clearly departs from the essential requirements of law and 

constitutes ‘cat out of the bag’ discovery that can cause material injury that 

cannot be adequately redressed on appeal.”); Life Care Ctrs. of Am. v. 

Reese, 948 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“Although certiorari is not 

available to remedy every erroneous discovery order, it is an appropriate 

remedy for discovery orders that depart from the essential requirements of 

the law by requiring patently overbroad discovery so extensive that 

compliance with the order will cause material injury to the affected party 

throughout the remainder of the proceeding, effectively leaving no adequate 

remedy on appeal.”).

Petition granted. Order quashed.