DAWN SPRY, PETITIONER,
v.
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYER PLANS D/B/A IHOP AND GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., 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.
In a workers' compensation case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal granted certiorari review to quash a discovery order compelling the claimant to disclose financial information. The court held that the respondents failed to demonstrate the relevance of the requested financial information, and that disclosure would cause irreparable harm to the claimant.
The court granted the petition for certiorari and quashed the order compelling discovery because respondents failed to demonstrate the relevance of the claimant's financial information, and disclosure of such personal financial information causes irreparable harm when it is not relevant to the case.
[1] Certiorari review is appropriate when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury of an irreparable nature that cannot be re…
[2] Disclosure of personal financial information through discovery may cause irreparable harm when the information is not relevant.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the disclosure of personal financial information [via discovery] may cause irreparable harm to a person forced to disclose it, in a case in which the information is not relevant”
Establishes that irreparable harm exists when personal financial information is disclosed in discovery without demonstrated relevance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents in a workers' compensation case moved to compel disclosure of Petitioner/Claimant's financial information. The judge of compensation claim…
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 Discovery Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, C.J.
In this workers’ compensation case, Respondents moved to compel disclosure of Petitioner/Claimant’s financial information. The judge of compensation claims (JCC) granted the motion; Claimant now seeks certiorari review of that ruling. We hereby grant the petition for certiorari because Respondents did not demonstrate the relevance of the information, and disclosure would cause irreparable harm.
This Court grants such a certiorari petition “when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury of an irreparable nature which cannot be remedied on appeal from a final order.” Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 975 So. 2d 1169, 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Irreparable harm is a condition precedent to invoking certiorari jurisdiction, and so should be considered first. Id. (citing Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla.1998)).
Here, Petitioner’s disclosure of the requested information will cause irreparable harm, simply because it is financial information; the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that “the disclosure of personal financial information [via discovery] may cause irreparable harm to a person forced to disclose it, in a case in which the information is not relevant.” Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla.2003) (citations omitted).
And the JCC departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering discovery without considering evidence as to its relevance. Case law holds that, in considering whether to permit discovery, a judge should consider whether the information sought is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Brandsmart v. Schaffer, 855 So. 2d 145, 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The relevance of financial information should be determined only after an evidentiary hearing, because “the Florida Constitution protects the financial information of individuals if there is no relevant or compelling reason to compel disclosure.” Borck v. Borck, 906 So. 2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The party seeking discovery must provide evidence to show that the information is relevant. Vega v. Swait, 961 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). In the instant case, although a hearing was held, Respondents presented no evidence as to the relevance of Claimant’s financial information. Accordingly, the JCC could not have considered any such evidence, and so granting discovery was a departure from the essential requirements of law.
For these reasons, we GRANT the petition for certiorari review, and QUASH the order granting Respondents’ motion to compel discovery.
KAHN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Elsner v. E-Commerce Coffee Club, 126 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…elling discovery of the financial information. Petitioners rely on language in Borck v. Borck, 906 So. 2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), Rowe v. Rodriguez-Schmidt, 89 So. 3d 1101, 1103-04 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), and Spry v. Professional Employer Plans, 985 So. 2d 1187, 1188-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). We find these cases distinguishable and decline to adopt a per se rule requiring a trial court always to conduct an evidentia-ry hearing before ordering financial discovery from a party. Such a mandatory rule would be i…
-
Rowe v. Rodriguez-Schmidt, 89 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544 (Fla.1985)). The burden to prove the information is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is on the party seeking the information. Spry v. Prof'l Emp'r Plans, 985 So. 2d 1187, 1188-89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Because of the strong public policy underlying this constitutional protection, “[t]he relevance of financial information should be determined only after an eviden-tiary hearing.” Id. at 1188-89. Accordingly, it has bee…
-
Jackson v. Computer Sci. Raytheon & CNA Ins. Co., 36 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…Claimant’s purported avoidances especially by way of detrimental reliance. In response, Claimant argued the request invaded his privacy and necessitated an evidentiary hearing pursuant to this court’s holding in Spry v. Professional Employer Plans, 985 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding JCC departed from essential requirements of law by requiring disclosure of financial documents without considering evidence regarding relevancy of information). Without an evidentiary hearing the JCC granted the E/C’s mo…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc, 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998)
- Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Inst. OF Port ST. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003)
- Borck v. Abbie S. Borck, 906 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 975 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Vega v. Swait, 961 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Brandsmart & Fcci Ins. Grp. v. Schaffer, 855 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)