Sasha Investments LLC v. Staghorn Development, LLC

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted Sasha Investments LLC’s petition for certiorari and quashed orders limiting a judgment creditor’s postjudgment discovery from the judgment debtors’ former law firm. The court held that the law firm’s blanket privilege assertion, combined with the absence of an in-camera review, constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law causing irreparable harm. The court emphasized the broad scope of judgment-creditor discovery concerning debtor assets while recognizing limits against fishing expeditions involving unrelated nonparties.

Holdings

1. Certiorari jurisdiction existed because the denial of discovery, combined with the absence of an in-camera review and the risk of asset dissipation, caused irreparable harm that could not be remedied on plenary appeal.
2. A judgment creditor may obtain discovery from any person, including a nonparty, concerning assets that may be subject to levy or execution or may have been recently transferred, subject to safeguards against an improper fishing expedition.
3. Asset-related information in a law firm's possession is not automatically protected by the attorney-client privilege, and when a nonparty law firm makes a broad privilege assertion, the trial court must provide a procedure, including in-camera review when appropriate, to determine which documents are actually privileged.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's restriction of a judgment creditor's subpoena to a nonparty law firm constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law causing irreparable harm.
2. Whether a judgment creditor may obtain postjudgment discovery from a nonparty concerning the judgment debtor's assets and financial transactions.
3. Whether the trial court was required to conduct or provide a procedure for in-camera review of documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Disposition

quashed