MICHAEL DUCOTE v. RIACHO, LLC, etc.
This text of MICHAEL DUCOTE v. RIACHO, LLC, etc. (MICHAEL DUCOTE v. RIACHO, LLC, etc.) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 12, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-524 Lower Tribunal No. 20-9219 ________________
Michael Ducote, et al., Petitioners,
vs.
Riacho, LLC, etc., Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge.
Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and W. Aaron Daniel and William D. Mueller, for petitioners.
De La Peña Group, P.A., and Leoncio E. de la Peña D., Otto C. de Córdoba and Tracy Pérez, for respondent.
Before SCALES, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Petitioners Michael Ducote and Gulflet Properties, LLC seek certiorari
review of a February 1, 2021 trial court order that overruled Petitioners’
objections to a non-party discovery subpoena. The subpoena was directed
toward Petitioners’ former law firm, Adams & Reese, LLP (the “Law Firm”),
which also served as the escrow agent for a real estate transaction.
After entry of both the challenged order and Petitioners’ February 15,
2021 filing of the instant petition, the discovery subpoena was served on the
Law Firm, and the Law Firm filed its own motion for protective order objecting
to the subpoena. Just as Petitioners had argued in their objections, the Law
Firm’s motion asserted that several of the sought documents were
privileged.
On March 11, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on the Law
Firm’s objections and entered a March 12, 2021 order that grants in part the
Law Firm’s motion for protective order (the “March 12th Order”). In relevant
part, the March 12th Order requires Petitioners to review the sought
documents with the Law Firm and prepare a privilege log pursuant to Florida
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6). The March 12th Order also requires
Petitioners to produce to respondent Riacho, LLC all documents for which
no privilege is claimed. As to the documents for which a privilege is claimed,
the March 12th Order provides that the trial court will conduct “an evidentiary
2 hearing and conduct an in camera review where necessary, prior to
production of such documents.”
Neither party has challenged the March 12th Order, which appears to
assuage the concerns raised in Petitioners’ petition. We therefore exercise
our discretion not to reach the merits of the petition and, instead, dismiss the
petition as having been mooted by the trial court’s entry of the March 12th
Order.
Petition dismissed as moot.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
MICHAEL DUCOTE v. RIACHO, LLC, etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-ducote-v-riacho-llc-etc-fladistctapp-2021.