DARIN ENGELHARDT
v.
LARA ARONOFF
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.
Darin Engelhardt petitioned for a writ of certiorari challenging a discovery order from the trial court. The Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition, applying established standards for certiorari review of discovery orders and principles governing relevancy in discovery disputes.
The court denied the petition for certiorari, implicitly holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery ruling. The court's citation to relevant authority suggests that if the materials sought were relevant to the subject matter of the action, denial would constitute an abuse of discretion.
[1] A party's financial documents and information are discoverable if shown to be relevant to the disputed issues of the underlying action and are not excepted from discovery…
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“Where materials sought by a party would appear to be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, it is an abuse of discretion to deny discovery.”
Establishes the legal standard for when denial of discovery constitutes reversible error
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute between Darin Engelhardt and Lara Aronoff regarding discovery in an underlying civil action in Miami-Dade County. The spec…
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 Certiorari Review Of Discovery Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petition denied. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Figueroa, 299 So. 3d 430, 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (describing standard for obtaining certiorari review of discovery order); Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“Where materials sought by a party would appear to be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, it is an abuse of discretion to deny discovery.”); Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla. 2003) (“A party’s finances, if relevant to the disputed issues of the underlying action, are not excepted from discovery under this rule of relevancy, and courts will compel production of personal financial documents and information if shown to be relevant by the requesting party.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Inst. OF Port ST. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003)
- Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bcml Holding, LLC, 299 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)