The case can be found here: https://3dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2440884/opinion/Opinion_2024-0391.pdf
Facts: Alexander Garcia won a $150,000 consent
judgment against Yellow Cab, which the company failed to pay. Seeking to
collect the judgment, Garcia deposed Yellow Cab’s corporate president, who
testified he had zero knowledge of the company’s ownership, finances, taxes, or
operations. The president did reveal, however, that Yellow Cab’s attorney,
Michael S. Kaufman, had appointed him to the role. Garcia subsequently
subpoenaed Kaufman for a deposition and requested records regarding his
retainer and the source of his payments. The trial court granted a protective
order to quash the attorney’s deposition, prompting Garcia to petition the
appellate court for a writ of certiorari.
Issue: Did the trial court depart from the essential
requirements of the law and cause irreparable harm by quashing the deposition
of a corporate attorney when the corporation’s designated representative
possessed absolutely no knowledge of the company’s affairs.
Rule:
- Certiorari
Relief: A petitioner must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm (a material
injury that cannot be corrected on appeal) and (2) a departure from the
essential requirements of the law.
- Privilege:
Attorney-client privilege does not protect corporate records identifying a
company’s principals or records of payments made to an attorney.
- Corporate
Duty: Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6), a corporation
has an affirmative duty to prepare its representative to testify about
matters reasonably available to the organization.
Application:
- Irreparable
Harm: Because the corporate president knew nothing and there were no
other witnesses, Garcia had no substitute method to obtain the information
needed to collect his judgment. Prohibiting the deposition of a material
witness inflicts harm that cannot be remedied on final appeal.
- Departure
from Law: The financial and corporate records Garcia sought from the
attorney are not privileged. A company cannot shield non-privileged
documents simply by transferring them to its lawyer. Because the corporate
representative was completely devoid of knowledge, the trial court should
have permitted Garcia to seek this non-privileged discovery directly from
the attorney.
Conclusion: The Third District Court of Appeal
granted Garcia’s petition, quashed the protective order barring the attorney’s
deposition, and remanded the case.