Ira Scot Silverstein, LLC, Etc. v. Kube

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ira Scot Silverstein, LLC, Etc. v. Kube

225 So. 3d 955, 2017 WL 3611544

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 23, 2017

Docket3D17-1022

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 3d 955 (Ira Scot Silverstein, LLC, Etc. v. Kube) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ira Scot Silverstein, LLC, Etc. v. Kube, 225 So. 3d 955, 2017 WL 3611544 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, J.

Ira Scot Silverstein, LLC n/k/a Ira Scot Silverstein, PLLC petitions for a writ of certiorari in connection with the trial court’s denial of its Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Protective Order regarding production of documents. We grant the petition because the ordering of the production of the requested documents constitutes a departure from an essential element of the law, would cause material harm and could not be rectified on appeal. Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. 2010); Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995).

Petitioner is a law firm which has represented several lenders in numerous foreclosure actions. Respondent was a defendant in one such foreclosure action. In connection with an Affirmative Defense, Respondent served a Request for Production seeking copies of all of Petitioner’s retainer agreements, with, the lenders it had represented from May 2013 to May 2016. Respondent also sought copies of all affidavits of attorney’s, fees filed by Petitioner for the same time period as well as all pleadings identifying Petitioner as counsel of record and all final judgments awarding fees to the plaintiffs therein. Respondent also sought copies of all checks representing payment of the fees from the lenders.

Respondent is not entitled to production of any such documents from Petitioner -by virtue of the litigation privilege. Any action taken by Petitioner in connection with its representation of clients in unrelated foreclosure actions is. protected by the privilege and its contracts and communications relating to such representation .are likewise protected in the context of the claim *956 made here. Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 386 (Fla. 2007). We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order below.

Petition Granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUAREZ, J.

Ira Scot Silverstein, LLC n/k/a Ira Scot Silverstein, PLLC petitions for a writ of certiorari in connection with the trial court’s denial of its Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Protective Order regarding production of documents. We grant the petition because the ordering of the production of the requested documents constitutes a departure from an essential element of the law, would cause material harm and could not be rectified on appeal. Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. 2010); Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995).

Petitioner is a law firm which has represented several lenders in numerous foreclosure actions. Respondent was a defendant in one such foreclosure action. In connection with an Affirmative Defense, Respondent served a Request for Production seeking copies of all of Petitioner’s retainer agreements, with, the lenders it had represented from May 2013 to May 2016. Respondent also sought copies of all affidavits of attorney’s, fees filed by Petitioner for the same time period as well as all pleadings identifying Petitioner as counsel of record and all final judgments awarding fees to the plaintiffs therein. Respondent also sought copies of all checks representing payment of the fees from the lenders.

Respondent is not entitled to production of any such documents from Petitioner -by virtue of the litigation privilege. Any action taken by Petitioner in connection with its representation of clients in unrelated foreclosure actions is. protected by the privilege and its contracts and communications relating to such representation .are likewise protected in the context of the claim *956 made here. Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So.2d 380, 386 (Fla. 2007). We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order below.

Petition Granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 955, 2017 WL 3611544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ira-scot-silverstein-llc-etc-v-kube-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack