NICOLAS IVAN LEIBOVICH
v.
THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
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 trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a protective order to a nonparty seeking to quash a subpoena duces tecum.
[1] A petition for certiorari review by a nonparty challenging a discovery order denying a protective order is treated as an appeal from a final order when the order is final…
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 intelligenceNicolas Ivan Leibovich, a nonparty to litigation, sought a protective order in response to a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Plurinational State of…
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 Subpoena Duces Tecum cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed April 20, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D22-0287 Lower Tribunal No. 21-18442 ________________
Nicolas Ivan Leibovich,
Appellant,
vs.
The Plurinational State of Bolivia,
Appellee,
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, Judge. Metschlaw, P.A., and Lawrence R. Metsch, for appellant. Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Francisco O. Sanchez, Joshua M. Mandel, and Gideon A. Levy, for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Nicolas Ivan Leibovich (nonparty below) seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order denying him a protective order in response to Bolivia’s subpoena duces tecum. We treat Leibovich’s petition as an appeal from a final order because, unlike ordinary discovery orders, the order here is final as to Leibovich. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) (“If a party seeks an improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been sought[.]”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Llovet, 330 So. 3d 1006, 1009 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Varela v. OLA Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 279 So. 3d 266, 276 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); United Servs. Auto Ass’n v. L. Off. Of Herssein & Herssein, P.A., 233 So. 3d 1224, 1230 n.6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). And finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. See Tien v. Akerman LLP, 320 So. 3d 309, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. LAW Offs. OF Herssein & Herssein, P.A., 233 So. 3d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)