DEEL REALTY, LLC, ETC., ET AL.
v.
DANIEL J. O'MALLEY, ET AL.
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.
A petition for certiorari challenging a discovery order is premature when filed before the trial court rules on a privilege log asserting attorney-client and work-product privileges.
[1] A petition for certiorari challenging a discovery order is premature when filed before the trial court has ruled on a privilege log asserting attorney-client and work-pro…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“unless and until the trial court rules on the issues raised by the privilege log, the materials listed on the privilege log need not be produced and a petition for certiorari seeking review is therefore premature”
Court's explanation of why the petition was premature
Deel Realty, LLC objected to discovery requests. The trial court overruled the objections except for materials protected by attorney-client and work-p…
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 Objections To Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 7, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0089 Lower Tribunal No. 24-3617-CA-01 ________________
Deel Realty, LLC, etc., et al., Petitioners,
vs.
Daniel J. O'Malley, etc., et al., Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge.
Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Garrett A. Tozier (Tampa), Julissa Rodriguez, Steven M. Ebner, and Jamie B. Wasserman, for petitioners.
Olive Judd, P.A., and Benjamin E. Olive and Christian R. Leto (Fort Lauderdale), for respondents.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 In light of the parties’ filings, we interpret the proceedings as overruling the Petitioners’ objections to discovery except as to materials protected under the attorney-client and work-product privileges and as requiring the Petitioners to file a privilege log listing the documents they assert are protected from disclosure under these privileges. The Petitioners have now apparently filed the privilege log, thereby setting the stage for an in-camera review by the trial court. Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Before a written objection to a request for production of documents is ruled upon, the documents are not ‘otherwise discoverable’ and thus the obligation to file a privilege log does not arise. Once the objection is ruled upon and the court determines what information is ‘otherwise discoverable,’ then the party must file a privilege log reciting which documents are privileged.”). Viewing the proceedings in this manner, unless and until the trial court rules on the issues raised by the privilege log, the materials listed on the privilege log need not be produced and a petition for certiorari seeking review is therefore premature. Dade Truss Co. v. Beaty, 271 So. 3d 59, 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Based on the record before us, we ‘treat the circuit court's order as a preliminary ruling that the information is discoverable,’ noting that privileges claimed with regard to specific documents must be affirmatively
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Holbrook v. State, 937 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Dade Truss Co. v. Beaty, 271 So. 3d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- State v. Kevon Trotman, 186 So. 3d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)