Court Opinion

ID: 9389819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 15:04:08.558023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.885896
License: Public Domain

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.
     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on a contended emergency basis, ostensibly rests upon a single superseded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v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 1987), superseded by statute on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

                                      2
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.

                                      3