Michael Brannon, PSY.D, and Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Daniel Palcu and State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael Brannon, PSY.D, and Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Daniel Palcu and State of Florida

177 So. 3d 693, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16008, 2015 WL 6496327

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 28, 2015

Docket4D15-894

StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 3d 693 (Michael Brannon, PSY.D, and Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Daniel Palcu and State of Florida) 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

Michael Brannon, PSY.D, and Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Daniel Palcu and State of Florida, 177 So. 3d 693, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16008, 2015 WL 6496327 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, Dr. Michael Brannon and Amlong and Amlong, the law firm that represents him, seek certiorari review of the trial court’s order compelling them to produce a specific e-mail string between the two, which the court set aside from discovery in a sealed envelope. Respondent, Daniel Palcu, sought the information to demonstrate that Dr. Brannon perpetuated a fraud or obstructed' justice when he testified in respondent’s criminal case.

Petitioners argued to the trial court that the communication was protected as an attorney-client communication. § 90.502, Fla. Stat. (2015). Respondent countered that the crime-fraud exception precluded petitioners’ use of that privilege. § 90.502(4)(a). The trial court conducted in camera review of many documents, including the e-mail string, and ordered that it be produced. Petitioners seek review, arguing that the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before ordering the production. •

We grant the petition, quash the order, and direct the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Merco Grp. of the Palm Beaches, Inc. v. McGregor, 162 So.3d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); BNP Pari-bas v. Wynne, 967 So.2d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As we explained in the above cited cases, the failure to afford petitioners an evidentiary hearing to address that document and argue why that exception should not apply is a departure from the essential requirements of law. Merco Grp., 162 So.3d at 51, BNP Paribas, 967 So.2d at 1068; Am. Tobacco, 697 So.2d at 1256-57.

Petition.granted; Order quashed.

MAY, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners, Dr. Michael Brannon and Amlong and Amlong, the law firm that represents him, seek certiorari review of the trial court’s order compelling them to produce a specific e-mail string between the two, which the court set aside from discovery in a sealed envelope. Respondent, Daniel Palcu, sought the information to demonstrate that Dr. Brannon perpetuated a fraud or obstructed' justice when he testified in respondent’s criminal case.

Petitioners argued to the trial court that the communication was protected as an attorney-client communication. § 90.502, Fla. Stat. (2015). Respondent countered that the crime-fraud exception precluded petitioners’ use of that privilege. § 90.502(4)(a). The trial court conducted in camera review of many documents, including the e-mail string, and ordered that it be produced. Petitioners seek review, arguing that the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before ordering the production. •

We grant the petition, quash the order, and direct the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Merco Grp. of the Palm Beaches, Inc. v. McGregor, 162 So.3d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); BNP Pari-bas v. Wynne, 967 So.2d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As we explained in the above cited cases, the failure to afford petitioners an evidentiary hearing to address that document and argue why that exception should not apply is a departure from the essential requirements of law. Merco Grp., 162 So.3d at 51, BNP Paribas, 967 So.2d at 1068; Am. Tobacco, 697 So.2d at 1256-57.

Petition.granted; Order quashed.

MAY, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 3d 693, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16008, 2015 WL 6496327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-brannon-psyd-and-amlong-amlong-pa-v-daniel-palcu-and-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack