## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2825

_____________________________ O TIS E LEVATOR C OMPANY , a Connecticut For Profit Corporation, C OASTAL E LEVATOR S ERVICE C ORP ., a Florida For Profit Corporation
, L OUIS C ARL D EVINCENTIS , i ndividually a nd

a s a n e mployee o f Otis Elevator Company
, J AMES D UDA , in dividually a nd a s a n e mployee

o f Otis Elevator Company
, D ANIEL H UNTER , in dividually

a nd a s a n e mployee o f Otis Elevator Company
, a nd R OBERT M OWREY , i ndividually a nd a s a n
e mployee o f Otis Elevator Company
,
Petitioners
,

v.

C ATHERINE C RAIG

- M YERS , i ndividually a nd a s p ersonal

r epresentative o f t he Estate o f Robert Myers
, Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition f or W rit of Certiorari

— Original Jurisdiction

. February 2 8 , 20192 P ER C URIAM

.
D ENIED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and R OBERTS , J., concur; O STERHAUS , J., concurs with opinion

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

O STERHAUS , J., concurring.

Petitioners mount a convincing argument that Respondent provided no evidence establishing a prima facie case for the application of the crime

- fraud exception. They are correct that b efore a trial court review s attorney

- client communications in

camera to determin e whether the crime

- fraud exception applies , it must first determine that the party invoking the exception has presented evidence establishing such a prima facie case. See First Union Nat’l Bank v. Turney , 824 So. 2d 172, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 200 1 )
, reh’g denied ( Jan. 17, 2002 ); see also Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig, LLP v. Coral Reef of Key Biscayne Developers, Inc ., 873 So. 2d 339, 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ; First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla. v. Whitener , 715 So. 2d 979, 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)

. Here, there was no evidence of an attorney’s advice being sought to aid the client’s crime or fraud. And so, in camera review of the privileged documents should not have been ordered. See Fla. Mining & Materials Corp. v. Cont ’ l Cas. Co. , 556 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that a party “must allege and produce prima facie evidence that petitioner s affirmatively sought the advice of counsel to procure a fraud” and declaring that a ruling that evidence of fraud itself suffices “would literally eliminate the attorney

- client privilege in any suit where there was any allegation of fraud or misrepresent ation”).3 In spite of this apparent error, however, certiorari relief is not available right now to fix it. Because t he trial court has not ordered anything to be disclosed to Respondent, nor determined if Respondent or her counsel will ever see any of the privileged documents , certiorari relief is premature. See Poston v. Wiggins, 112 So. 3d 783, 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Leal , 917 So. 2d 336 , 339

- 40 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2005) (denying as premature a certiorari petition seeking review of an order requiring the submission of documents for an in camera inspection) ).

_____________________________

Kenneth B. Bell and Lauren V. Purdy of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. , Tallahassee
, for Petitioners

. Philip J. Padovano of Brannock & Humphries, Tallahassee, and Maegen Peek Luka of Brannock & Humphries, Ta mpa ; Sidney L. Matthew of Sidney L. Matthew, P.A., Tallahassee, for Respondent

.