DELOITTE, HASKINS AND SELLS, A NEW YORK PARTNERSHIP, PETITIONER,
v.
SOUTHERN FINANCIAL HOLDING CORP., RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that discovery of an accountant's financial records and working papers is limited unless a prima facie case of fraud or waiver of privilege is shown. The court also quashed discovery of employment agreements reflecting trade secrets, directing an in camera inspection.
Petitioner sought certiorari review of trial court orders compelling discovery of financial records, working papers, and employment agreements related…
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 Accountant-Client Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Certiorari is granted as to that portion of the April 30, 1990, order which requires discovery of financial records and working papers in petitioner’s possession on behalf of its client Central Savings and Loan Association, and that portion of the order is quashed. To obtain access to these materials, respondent must make out a prima facie case that Central used the accountant-client relationship to promote intended or actual fraud or demonstrate that Central has waived its privilege.
Certiorari is granted as to that portion of the April 30, 1990, order which grants discovery of petitioner’s records on behalf of its client First Venice Savings and Loan Association, and that portion of the order is quashed. Such records may not be discovered unless First Venice is shown to have waived its accountant-client privilege or there is presented prima facie evidence that First Venice used its relationship with the petitioner to promote an intended or actual fraud.
Certiorari is also granted as to that portion of the April 30, 1990, order which grants discovery of petitioner’s employment agreement or other documents setting forth petitioner’s relationship to its client Central Savings and Loan, as this material may reflect trade secrets of the petitioner. This portion of the order is also quashed. The trial court is directed to inspect the subject material in camera and to apply the provisions of section 90.506, of the Florida Statutes. The petition is denied insofar as it seeks review of the trial court’s order of May 1, 1990, which denies petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and insofar as it seeks to quash that part of the trial court's order of April 30, 1990, which requires discovery of error and loss insurance information, without prejudice to petitioner to raise such issue on final appeal.
Finally, respondent’s motion to strike and for sanctions is denied.
ANSTEAD, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ively sought the advice of counsel to procure a fraud.” We also applied the “prima facie evidence” test in considering the crime-fraud exception when applied to an accountant-client privilege. Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. Southern Fin. Holding Corp., 566 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The fifth district applied the same standard in Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four Partnership, 638 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Thus, four of the five district courts of appeal in Florida have used the prima facie standard in determ…
-
Nelson v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…t it can refute a claim that it had waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to the documents. The problem with this claim is that the burden of proving a waiver is on the counties.”); Deloitte, Haskins & Sells v. S. Fin. Holding Corp., 566 So. 2d 906, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (“To obtain access to these [financial records], respondent must make out a prima facie case that Central . . . has waived 7 its [accountant-client] privilege.”); Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Morrison, 621 So. 2d 464,…
-
Celotex Corp. v. Hillsborough Holdings Corp. (In Re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.), 176 B.R. 223 (M.D. Fla. 1994)….Stat. § 90.5055. Various Florida courts have permitted the invocation of the privilege to prevent disclosure of audit workpapers and related documents prepared by an accountant. See Deloitte, Haskins & Sells v. Southern Finance Holding Corp., 566 So.2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (quashing circuit court order requiring discovery of financial records and workpa-pers in accountant’s possession); Affiliated of Florida, Inc. v. U-Need Sundries, Inc., 397 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (holding that confid…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence