Ross v. Fly Me to the Moon, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ross v. Fly Me to the Moon, LLC

818 So. 2d 681, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8240, 2002 WL 1285197

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 12, 2002

DocketNo. 4D02-119

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 818 So. 2d 681 (Ross v. Fly Me to the Moon, LLC) 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

Ross v. Fly Me to the Moon, LLC, 818 So. 2d 681, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8240, 2002 WL 1285197 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering petitioner, Donna Ross, a nonparty to produce the discovery requested by the respondent in the action below, without first conducting an in camera inspection to determine whether the need for the financial discovery here overrides the petitioner’s privacy rights. See Voytish v. Ozycz, 695 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(granting a petition for writ of certiorari and quashing the discovery order of the trial court compelling petitioner, a nonparty parent of the defendant below, to produce three years of tax returns where the respondent failed to meet his burden to show any need for the discovery which would override the privacy rights of the nonparty, holding that “before ordering the tax returns sought, the trial court must conduct an in camera review of the tax returns to ascertain whether they contain information relevant to the dispute between the parties.”).

Especially troubling in the present case is that, on the record before this court, counsel for the respondents admitted that the request for Ms. Ross’ bank statements was overly broad, and that he may not want “90 percent of the documents requested” from her.

Accordingly, under the facts here, we grant the petition, quash the trial court’s order, and remand for an in camera inspection. See Colonial Medical Specialities of South Florida, Inc. v. United Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc., 674 So.2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

GROSS, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering petitioner, Donna Ross, a nonparty to produce the discovery requested by the respondent in the action below, without first conducting an in camera inspection to determine whether the need for the financial discovery here overrides the petitioner’s privacy rights. See Voytish v. Ozycz, 695 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(granting a petition for writ of certiorari and quashing the discovery order of the trial court compelling petitioner, a nonparty parent of the defendant below, to produce three years of tax returns where the respondent failed to meet his burden to show any need for the discovery which would override the privacy rights of the nonparty, holding that “before ordering the tax returns sought, the trial court must conduct an in camera review of the tax returns to ascertain whether they contain information relevant to the dispute between the parties.”).

Especially troubling in the present case is that, on the record before this court, counsel for the respondents admitted that the request for Ms. Ross’ bank statements was overly broad, and that he may not want “90 percent of the documents requested” from her.

Accordingly, under the facts here, we grant the petition, quash the trial court’s order, and remand for an in camera inspection. See Colonial Medical Specialities of South Florida, Inc. v. United Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc., 674 So.2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

GROSS, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

818 So. 2d 681, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8240, 2002 WL 1285197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-fly-me-to-the-moon-llc-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack