MAIDEL DE ARMAS
v.
EMILIO DE ARMAS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioner Maidel de Armas challenged a trial court order requiring forensic imaging of her mobile device to obtain accurate metadata from WhatsApp and text messages she had produced in redacted form. The appellate court denied her petition for a writ of certiorari, holding that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in ordering the forensic imaging.
The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law. A writ of certiorari requires demonstration of a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in material injury that cannot be corrected on plenary appeal, which petitioner failed to establish.
[1] A party seeking a writ of certiorari must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law that results in material injury which cannot be corrected on plen…
[2] A trial court's order compelling the production of a mobile device for forensic imaging is not a departure from the essential requirements of law when the device contains…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To obtain a writ of certiorari, a party must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law that results in material injury that cannot be corrected on plenary appeal.”
Establishes the legal standard petitioner must meet to obtain certiorari relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner produced limited cropped screenshots of WhatsApp and text messages that lacked timestamps, sender, or recipient information. The trial cour…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Metadata cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 31, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1993 Lower Tribunal No. 24-6193-CA-01
________________
Maidel De Armas,
Petitioner,
vs.
Emilio De Armas,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge. Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar), for petitioner. Mamone Villalon, and Ramsey Villalon, for respondent. Before LINDSEY, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. After producing limited cropped screenshots of WhatsApp and text messages lacking timestamps or any sender or recipient information, the trial court ordered the Petitioner Maidel de Armas to submit her mobile device for forensic imaging. This was done to obtain accurate message data and metadata concerning communications, which are relevant to the lawsuit. She now petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking to quash that order.
To obtain a writ of certiorari, a party must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law that results in material injury that cannot be corrected on plenary appeal. Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004). But Petitioner has failed to prove that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Talley v. Consol. Respondents, 350 So. 3d 415, 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“Accordingly, the trial court could not have departed from the essential requirements of law, especially when Petitioners concede that the text messages contain relevant information and the trial court has gone to great lengths to ensure that any specific privacy or privilege concerns may still be addressed in the future.”); Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc., 148 So. 3d 163, 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“The record here indicates that the trial court closely considered how to balance Respondents’ discovery rights and the decedent’s privacy rights. The order highlighted the relevance of the cellphone’s data to the Respondents’ defense and it set forth strict procedures controlling how the inspection process would proceed.”). As a result, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari. Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)
- Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc., 148 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)