The First Baptist Church of Greater Miami v. Miami Baptist Association, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 7, 2025
• Docket: 3D2023-1975
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 7, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1975 Lower Tribunal No. 17-9735 ________________

The First Baptist Church of Greater Miami, Appellant,

vs.

Miami Baptist Association, Inc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.

Pierre Simon, and Faudlin Pierre (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.

Lines Law, PLLC, and Matthew L. Lines, for appellee Miami Baptist Association, Inc.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (“It is

well settled that determining sanctions for discovery violations is committed

to the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed upon appeal

absent an abuse of the sound exercise of that discretion. Reviewing courts

apply a ‘reasonableness test’ to determine if the trial court has abused its

discretion, which provides that if reasonable people could differ as to the

propriety of the trial court’s action, the action is not unreasonable, and no

abuse of discretion has occurred.”); Bainter v. League of Women Voters of

Fla., 150 So. 3d 1115, 1117 (Fla. 2014) (holding that, based on a detailed

examination of the record which demonstrated an inexcusable delay in the

appellants asserting the privilege, any objection to the production of certain

documents based on privilege was waived: “Our holding of waiver is based

on the totality of the circumstances in this case and not on any one particular

factor. Those circumstances began when [Appellant] did not file a motion for

a protective order or raise any legal objection to producing the documents

when served with a subpoena duces tecum including these disputed

documents within its scope. Instead, [Appellant] attended a deposition,

during which he affirmatively testified under oath that he had conducted ‘a

thorough search’ for documents in response to the subpoena and had

produced what he found. Then, after being served with additional subpoenas

2 duces tecum including these disputed documents within their scope, the non-

parties did not raise any claim of a First Amendment privilege during six more

months of hearings and filings regarding document production. Not until the

day after the trial court held the non-parties in contempt of court and ordered

them to pay attorney’s fees for failing to produce the documents did the

words ‘First Amendment’ appear for the first time in a filing or a hearing

transcript in the trial court.”).