MARTHA L. VALENCIA
v.
PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC

Fla. 3d DCA | 2021-02-17
No. 20-1727
Welbaum
45 Fla. L. Weekly D2508 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2021) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 317 So. 3d 178
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

A petition for certiorari to challenge a protective order limiting dissemination of videotaped deposition materials must be dismissed where the petitioner fails to demonstrate irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. No First Amendment right of access extends to pretrial discovery materials.

Headnotes

[1] A protective order issued pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) in a discovery dispute is a non-final order not appealable as of right under Florida Rule o…

[2] Certiorari review of an interlocutory order requires the petitioner to satisfy a heightened standard by demonstrating both irreparable harm that cannot be corrected on po…

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
Key Quotes

“A party seeking certiorari review must demonstrate (1) that the contested order results in material injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal and (2) that the order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”

This establishes the two-part test required for certiorari jurisdiction and the heightened standard applicable to extraordinary writs.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

In a mortgage foreclosure action filed in 2016, Valencia sought to videotape a deposition of U.S. Bank's corporate representative. U.S. Bank moved for…

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.

Topics
Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.280(C) Discovery Materials Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.040(C) First Amendment Right Of Access

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.280(C) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 17, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1727 Lower Tribunal No. 16-30551

________________

Martha L. Valencia,

Petitioner,

vs.

PennyMac Holdings, LLC, et al., Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Michael Van Cleve, Law and Michael Van Cleve, for petitioner. Akerman LLP, and Nancy M. Wallace (Tallahassee); Akerman LLP, and William P. Heller (Ft. Lauderdale); Akerman LLP, and Eric M. Levine (West Palm Beach), for respondent U.S. Bank N.A. as Trustee, etc. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. LINDSEY, J. Petitioner Martha Valencia seeks a writ of certiorari quashing a circuit court order prohibiting her from “disseminating, publishing, distributing, or using the records (written, audio, and visual) of U.S. Bank’s corporate representative outside of this litigation.” Because Valencia has not demonstrated irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on appeal, we dismiss the petition.

This residential mortgage foreclosure action was filed in November 2016.1 Valencia served notice in August 2020 that she intended to take a video deposition of U.S. Bank’s corporate representative. U.S. Bank moved for a protective order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c). U.S. Bank did not object to the deposition but requested an order prohibiting the video recording of the deposition or, in the alternative, publication of the video. Following a hearing, the lower court entered an order allowing Valencia to videotape the deposition but prohibiting her from disseminating the video.

Valencia appealed the non-final discovery order. U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the order is not one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure

Footnotes
1 PennyMac Holdings, LLC was the original plaintiff. On January 18, 2019, U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2016- CTT, was substituted in as the plaintiff below. 9.130. See Pescod v. Wells Rd. Veterinary Med. Ctr., Inc., 748 So. 2d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that a protective order entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) is a non-final order over which the court lacks appellate jurisdiction); Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152 So. 3d 789, 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Orders governing discovery are not one of the interlocutory orders that can be appealed as a matter of right.” (citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.130)). This Court entered an order on December 31, 2020, treating the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c).2 Because certiorari is an extraordinary writ, “the standard of review governing a petition for certiorari is much higher than the standard governing an appeal of right.” Damsky, 152 So. 3d. at 792. “A party seeking certiorari review must demonstrate (1) that the contested order results in material injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal and (2) that the order departs from the essential requirements of the law.” Piquet v. Clareway Props. Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2508 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 12, 2020). “[T]he Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that
2 In her response to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner requested that the appeal be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari should the order not be an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. ‘[a] finding that the petitioning party has “suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal” is a ‘condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari jurisdiction.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Damsky, 152 So. 3d at 792). Here, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. Petitioner argues the lower court’s order prohibiting her from disseminating a videotaped deposition “unconstitutionally gags” her speech. As an initial matter, Petitioner has not explained why this harm cannot be remedied on appeal. Moreover, “[i]t is settled law that there is no First Amendment right of access to pretrial discovery materials.” SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. Light, 811 So. 2d 796, 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary, 520 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1988); Miami Herald Publ’g. Co. v. Gridley, 510 So. 2d 884, 885 (Fla.1987) (extending the rule to pretrial discovery in civil proceedings); Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Burk, 504 So. 2d 378, 382 (Fla.1987)). Further, “trial courts have broad discretion to decide what type of protective order may be necessary to prevent damaging information from being released.” Id. Because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the jurisdictional irreparable harm requirement necessary for certiorari relief, we dismiss the petition. Petition dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

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

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw