Case Name: Michael BRANNON, Psy.D., and Amlong & Amlong, P.A., Petitioners, v. Daniel PALCU and State of Florida, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2015-10-28
Citations: 177 So. 3d 693
Docket Number: No. 4D15-894
Parties: Michael BRANNON, Psy.D., and Amlong & Amlong, P.A., Petitioners, v. Daniel PALCU and State of Florida, Respondents.
Judges: MAY, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 177
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
Michael BRANNON, Psy.D., and Amlong & Amlong, P.A., Petitioners, v. Daniel PALCU and State of Florida, Respondents.
No. 4D15-894.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 28, 2015.
William R. Amlong, Jennifer Daley and Alison Churly-Davis, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
Alan R. Soven of Law Offices of Alan R. Soven, Miami, for respondent Daniel Pal-cu.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, Dr. Michael Brannon and Amlong and Amlong, the law firm that represents him, seek certiorari review of the trial court's order compelling them to produce a specific e-mail string between the two, which the court set aside from discovery in a sealed envelope. Respondent, Daniel Palcu, sought the information to demonstrate that Dr. Brannon perpetuated a fraud or obstructed' justice when he testified in respondent's criminal case.
Petitioners argued to the trial court that the communication was protected as an attorney-client communication. § 90.502, Fla. Stat. (2015). Respondent countered that the crime-fraud exception precluded petitioners' use of that privilege. § 90.502(4)(a). The trial court conducted in camera review of many documents, including the e-mail string, and ordered that it be produced. Petitioners seek review, arguing that the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before ordering the production. •
We grant the petition, quash the order, and direct the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Merco Grp. of the Palm Beaches, Inc. v. McGregor, 162 So.3d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); BNP Pari-bas v. Wynne, 967 So.2d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As we explained in the above cited cases, the failure to afford petitioners an evidentiary hearing to address that document and argue why that exception should not apply is a departure from the essential requirements of law. Merco Grp., 162 So.3d at 51, BNP Paribas, 967 So.2d at 1068; Am. Tobacco, 697 So.2d at 1256-57.
Petition.granted; Order quashed.
MAY, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ, concur.