Valerie A. Lyons, et al. v. Sanford D. Lyons, et al.

Summary

The Florida District Court of Appeal held that when a party objects to a non-party subpoena duces tecum under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351 on grounds of privilege (including attorney-client, accountant-client, and work product), the trial court must conduct an in camera inspection before ordering production. The court clarified that the 2008 amendment to Rule 1.351 allows the court to rule on such objections without requiring the requesting party to proceed by deposition under Rule 1.310. The petition for certiorari was denied as moot because the trial court later entered a protective order providing a privilege-review procedure, and the court dismissed challenges based on overbreadth and irrelevance as outside the scope of certiorari review.

Holdings

1. When a party objects to a Rule 1.351 subpoena on grounds of privilege, the trial court must ensure that privileged documents are protected—typically through an in camera inspection—prior to ordering production.
2. Under amended Rule 1.351(d), a party's objection does not automatically compel the requesting party to seek production via deposition under Rule 1.310; the trial court has authority to rule on the objection.
3. Certiorari review is generally not available to challenge discovery orders on the grounds that they are vague, overbroad, or seek irrelevant material.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by authorizing a Rule 1.351 subpoena without first conducting an in camera review of documents for privilege.
2. Whether an objection to a Rule 1.351 subpoena is self-executing, compelling the proponent to obtain documents solely through a deposition under Rule 1.310.
3. Whether the subpoena was overbroad and sought irrelevant materials such that certiorari relief was warranted.

Disposition

writ_denied