Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed June 14, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-2026

Lower Tribunal No. 19-30995

________________

Masoud Shojaee,

Petitioner,

vs.

Anibal J. Duarte-Viera, P.A., etc.,

Respondent.

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

Lopez, Judge.

White & Case, LLP, and Raoul G. Cantero and Torri D. Macarages; 

Mark Migdal & Hayden, and Darci Cohen and Jose M. Ferrer, for petitioner.

Heise Suarez Melville, P.A., and Patricia Melville, Luis E. Suarez, and 

Thomas S. Ward, for respondent.

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and HENDON, JJ. 

LOGUE, J.
2

Masoud Shojaee, a defendant in the underlying lawsuit, petitions this 

Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s discovery order. The 

order denied Shojaee’s objections to plaintiff Anibal J. Duarte-Viera, P.A.’s 

subpoenas. The subpoenas seek financial information from third parties, 

including Shojaee’s ex-wife. Shojaee argues that the production of this 

information inherently causes irreparable harm and the information sought 

has no relevance to the dispute between the parties. Because the relevance 

of such records is not apparent from the pleadings and no evidentiary 

foundation was laid that would establish their relevance, we issue the writ 

and quash the order at issue. 

Factual and Procedural History

Shojaee is the trustee for a 25 percent owner of Santa Fe Haciendas, 

LLC, and Duarte-Viera is the trustee for a 75 percent owner. Shojaee is the 

manager of Santa Fe and is alleged to have improperly withdrawn millions 

of dollars from Santa Fe’s accounts. As a result of Shojaee’s withdrawals, 

Duarte-Viera, as the trustee of Santa Fe’s majority member, sued Shojaee 

and the Northern Trust Company, the majority member’s prior trustee.

In its complaint, Duarte-Viera alleged the following causes of action: 

(1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Care against Shojaee as Manager; (2) Breach 

of Duty of Loyalty against Shojaee as Manager; (3) Gross Negligence 
3

against Northern Trust; (4) Breach of Contract against Shojaee as Manager; 

and (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Shojaee as Member.

Shojaee’s daughters, the beneficiaries of the majority member, also 

sued Shojaee and Northern Trust. They alleged causes of action for: (1) 

Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Shojaee Individually; and (2) Breach of 

Fiduciary Duty against Northern Trust.

In litigating these claims, Duarte-Viera served notice of its intent to 

subpoena three non-parties: Aneli Artwork, LLC, Shoma Alliance 

Management Corporation, and Maria Lamas. Shojaee allegedly controls 

both the artwork and management companies. Ms. Lamas is Shojaee’s exwife. The subpoenas request essentially all financial documents from the 

companies for a four-year period and financial information concerning 

Shojaee’s divorce.

The subpoena to Aneli Artwork, LLC requested:

1. Any and all bank statements related to Aneli Artwork, 

LLC from 2017-2021, including copies of canceled 

checks.

2. Any and all brokerage account statements related to 

Aneli Artwork, LLC from 2017-2021.

3. Any and all financial statements, including balance 

sheets, income statements and general ledgers from 

2017-2021.
4

The subpoena to Shoma Alliance Management Corporation

requested:

1. Any and all bank statements related to Shoma Alliance 

Management Corp. from 2017-2021, including copies of 

canceled checks, involving transactions concerning, 

relating to and/or pertaining to the affairs of The M&M Life 

Insurance Trust and/or Santa Fe Haciendas, LLC.

2. Any and all brokerage account statements related to 

Shoma Alliance Management Corp. from 2017-2021.

3. Any and all financial statements, including balance 

sheets, income statements and general ledgers from 

2017-2021.

4. Any and all agreements, loans, notes, licenses and 

communications in any form relating, concerning and/or 

involving the affairs and business of The M&M Life 

Insurance Trust and/or Santa Fe Haciendas, LLC.

The subpoena to Ms. Lamas requested:

1. Marital Settlement Agreement executed between Maria 

Lamas (“You”) and Masoud Shojaee (“Masoud”) and/or 

interested party, Shoma Coral Gables, LLC, relating to 

the case no.: 2015-010703-FC-04 (“Divorce 

Proceedings”).

2. All financial affidavits executed by Masoud and furnished 

to You or your lawyers in connection with the Divorce 

Proceedings, including all personal and corporate 

financial records produced by and/or on behalf of 

Masoud and/or by Shoma Coral Gables, LLC and/or any 

other business entity associated with Masoud.

3. All deposition transcripts given by Masoud in the Divorce 

Proceedings.
5

Shojaee objected to these subpoenas. After a non-evidentiary hearing 

on the objections, the trial court overruled them.1 This petition for writ of 

certiorari timely followed.

Analysis

As a preliminary matter, Duarte-Viera argues that Shojaee lacks 

standing to object to the production of third-party documents. However, 

Duarte-Viera did not make this argument to the trial court and thus it did not 

preserve this argument for our review. Joli v. Hannon, 336 So. 3d 343, 344 

(Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Because appellant failed to raise any objection to the 

City Clerk's standing, she is precluded from raising this claim for the first time 

on appeal.”).

This Court grants a petition for certiorari relief where a non-final order 

(1) causes irreparable harm; and (2) departs from the essential requirements 

of law. Lewis v. Dollar Rent A Car, 220 So. 3d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2017). We review each element in turn.

1 The hearing was not noticed as evidentiary. Nevertheless, as part of its 

presentation during the hearing, Duarte-Viera incorporated materials 

presented at a hearing in a related lawsuit before the same trial judge. In the 

related case, Duarte-Viera read from Shojaee’s deposition transcript and 

presented copies of Santa Fe checks made out to Aneli Artwork, LLC and 

Shoma Alliance Management Corporation.
6

A. Irreparable Harm

Shojaee argues that the production of financial information, by its very 

nature and without a showing of relevancy to the underlying lawsuit, causes 

irreparable harm. Because financial information is protected under the 

Florida Constitution and there is a long line of cases holding same, we agree.

See Borck v. Borck, 906 So. 2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Article I, 

section 23, of the Florida Constitution protects the financial information of 

persons if there is no relevant or compelling reason to compel disclosure.”). 

See also Spry v. Prof’l Employer Plans, 985 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2008) (“disclosure of the requested information will cause irreparable harm, 

simply because it is financial information”); Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 

66, 69–70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[T]hird party financial records . . . are of the 

utmost sensitivity and are not discoverable unless the party seeking 

discovery establishes a need for the discovery sufficient to overcome the 

privacy rights of the third party.”).

Moreover, due to the inherently personal nature of divorce-related 

documents, this information also invokes the protection of Article I, section 

23, of the Florida Constitution. See Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 

500 So. 2d 533, 536 (Fla. 1987) (“Although the general concept of privacy 
7

encompasses an enormously broad and diverse field of personal action and 

belief, there can be no doubt that [Article I, section 23, of the Florida 

Constitution] was intended to protect the right to determine whether or not 

sensitive information about oneself will be disclosed to others.”). Therefore, 

absent a showing of relevancy of this sensitive information, its disclosure 

causes irreparable harm.

B. Essential Requirements of Law

Privacy interests may be overcome, and sensitive information 

produced, however, if the information is relevant to the lawsuit.2 See Borck, 

906 So. 2d at 1211; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. Relevancy is established by the 

pleadings or evidence. Inglis v. Casselberry, 200 So. 3d 206, 210-11 (Fla. 

2d DCA 2016); Elsner v. E-Commerce Coffee Club, 126 So. 3d 1261, 1263-

64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Spry, 985 So. 2d 1187. If the pleadings form a 

sufficient relevancy basis, the trial court does not need to hold an evidentiary 

hearing. Elsner, 126 So. 3d at 1264. However, the pleadings do not show 

2 The parties dispute whether this Court should apply the relevancy test, 

applicable to party information, or the necessity test, applicable to third-party 

information. Because the requested materials do not pass the less stringent 

relevancy test, we do not address this issue.
8

the relevancy of the documents requested to the dispute and no evidentiary 

hearing was conducted here.

Duarte-Viera did not make any allegations in its complaint regarding 

Aneli Artwork, LLC, Shoma Alliance Management Corporation, or Ms. 

Lamas.3 In an apparent attempt to show relevancy outside of the pleadings, 

Duarte-Viera read from Shojaee’s deposition transcript and presented copies 

of Santa Fe checks made out to Shoma Alliance Management Corporation 

and Aneli Artwork, LLC. However, the trial court could not rely on these 

materials in its relevancy determination because Duarte-Viera never formally 

submitted them as evidence. Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So. 

2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“Neither the submission of affidavits nor 

argument of counsel is sufficient to constitute an evidentiary hearing.”); Eight 

Hundred, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 837 So. 2d 574, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2003) (“Representations by an attorney for one of the parties regarding the 

facts, and documents attached as exhibits to a motion, do not constitute 

3 The only allegation that may concern one of Shojaee’s companies, is the 

allegation that “Shojaee used and commingled the personnel of his affiliated 

entity, Shoma Homes, to periodically prepare financial statements and K-1s 

for Santa Fe’s two members (the Trust and Shojaee).” This allegation, 

without more, does not establish the relevance necessary to obtain 

privileged financial records of Shoma Alliance Management Corporation, 

much less those of Aneli Artwork, LLC or Ms. Lamas.
9

evidence.”). We thus disregard all materials outside the complaint presented 

at the hearing. Therefore, in the record before us, there has been no showing 

of the relevance to this dispute of the extremely broad category of third-party 

records requested. We are not holding that such a showing cannot be 

established, but simply that it has not been established in this record.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the 

trial court’s order.