Matthew Hurley v. John Schanz

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: 6D2024-2142
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-2142 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CA-000128 _____________________________

MATTHEW HURLEY,

Petitioner, v.

JOHN SCHANZ,

Respondent. _____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Lee County. James Shenko, Judge.

February 7, 2025

NARDELLA, J.

In this action challenging the domestication of a final default judgment from

North Carolina, Matthew Hurley (“Petitioner”) seeks a writ of certiorari quashing

portions of the trial court’s order compelling him to respond to John Schanz’s

(“Respondent”) discovery seeking information about Petitioner’s personal finances

and any businesses Petitioner created, owned, or operated. Petitioner contends this

information is protected under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution and is

not discoverable because it is irrelevant to the issues presented. Since the protection afforded under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution does not extend to

businesses, Network Comms. of N.W. Fla., Inc. v. Dep’t of Rev., 334 So. 3d 707, 710

(Fla. 1st DCA 2022), Petitioner has not shown he will be irreparably harmed by

disclosing information about businesses he created, owned, or operated. As for

Petitioner’s personal finances, while protected under article I, section 23 of the

Florida Constitution, Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544, 548

(Fla. 1985), Petitioner has not shown the trial court departed from the essential

requirements of the law by ordering its disclosure because the information could be

relevant to a key issue—whether the North Carolina court had personal jurisdiction

over Petitioner. See Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189,

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.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED 2