MICHAEL A. BLANK, PETITIONER,
v.
STEVEN S. MUKAMAL, STEPHEN SINGER, PHILIP J. KLEINER, JONATHAN E. AVIROM, ISAAC FROMM, JERALD B. SERVISS, MARTIN L. ROTHSTEIN, HENRY S. DOGIN, JEFFREY P. FOGELSON, MARTIN B. DANZIGER, ROBERT D. RIVKIND, OSCAR LEVIN, CARL M. SHUSTERMAN, KEHRELA M. HODKINSON, AND ROBERT LIEBER, EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNERS OF BARST & MUKAMAL, A NEW YORK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, AND BARST & MUKAMAL, A NEW YORK PARTNERSHIP, RESPONDENTS
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.
Certiorari is granted to review an order compelling production of privileged attorney files, and the order is quashed.
Petitioners sought review of a trial court order requiring production of their former counsel's entire files.…
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 In Camera Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek review by certiorari of an order requiring production of the entire files of the petitioner’s former counsel. Certiorari will lie to review an order to produce for discovery privileged information where material is protected by the attorney-client privilege. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987).
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the trial court’s order of April 11, 1990, is quashed. Cf. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 431 So. 2d 329, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
The trial court is directed to examine in camera the petitioner’s former counsel’s file of his representation of petitioner. The court shall select for potential production only items that are not privileged. Bearing in mind the content of former counsel’s testimony before the United States magis trate, the court shall further select those items that are closely related to that testimony, and for which the attorney-client privilege has thus been waived.
Finally, the court shall apply the rules governing discovery to determine which of the items selected should be produced for discovery.
ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eugene J. Strasser, M.D., P.A. v. Bose Yalamanchi, M.D., P.A., 669 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…nformation that is alleged to be confidential or to address discovery requests which constitute overly broad and unwarranted intrusions into a party’s business where the potential for irreparable harm is demonstrated. See generally Blank v. Mukamal, 566 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); First City Devs. v. Hallmark of Hollywood Condo. Ass’n, 545 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); LeJeune v. Aikin, 624 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The harm here is irreparable because once confidential information is disclose…
-
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Crews, 614 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…equate remedy on appeal. Martin-Joknson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987). An order which improperly compels discovery of information privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege is reviewable by certiorari. Blank v. Mukamal, 566 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA1990). The order on review was entered following a hearing on Crews’ motion for determination of attorney-client privilege. Agreeing with Crews’ argument, the trial court determined that since the attorney-client privilege did not prot…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 780 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…te remedy on appeal. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987). An order which improperly compels discovery of information privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege is reviewable by certiorari. Blank v. Mukamal, 566 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). A trial court cannot delegate the sole authority to perform “a purely judicial function.” Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368, 1371 (Fla.1991) (concluding trial court could not delegate to probation officer authority to perform “a…
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- L.B.K., Inc. v. Union Indem. Ins. Co., 431 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)