MATTHEW HURLEY
v.
JOHN SCHANZ
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.
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a discovery order compelling disclosure of his personal finances and business information in connection with a domesticated North Carolina default judgment. The court held that while personal financial information is constitutionally protected, it remains discoverable when relevant to jurisdictional issues, and business information is not constitutionally protected from disclosure.
The court held that business information is not protected under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution and is therefore discoverable. While personal financial information is constitutionally protected, it remains discoverable when relevant to disputed issues such as whether a court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in ordering such disclosure.
[1] Information regarding businesses created, owned, or operated by a party is not protected from discovery under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution.
[2] Personal financial information protected under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution is discoverable when the requesting party demonstrates its relevance to d…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 protection afforded under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution does not extend to businesses”
Establishes that business information lacks constitutional protection and is therefore discoverable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent obtained a final default judgment against Petitioner in North Carolina and sought to domesticate it in Florida. During the domestication pr…
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 Florida Constitution Article I, Section 23 cases and more on FLexlaw
194 (Fla. 2003) (explaining “courts will compel production of personal financial documents and information if shown to be relevant by the requesting party” to “the disputed issues of the underlying action”). For these reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed in part and denied in part.
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL, J., concur. David P. Fraser, of Holmes Fraser, PA, Naples, for Petitioner. Kathleen D. Dackiewicz and Emily Y. Rottmann, of McGuireWoods LLP, Jacksonville, for Respondent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Winfield v. Division OF Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1985)
- Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Inst. OF Port ST. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003)
- Network Commc'ns of Nw. Fla., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue & Holly Ann Otten, 334 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)