Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 12, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2280
Lower Tribunal No. 21-15370
________________
Southeast Enterprise Holdings, LLC,
Petitioner,
vs.
Marquel, Inc.,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.
Anthony Lawhon, P.A., and Anthony M. Lawhon (Naples), for
petitioner.
Lorium Law, and Shay B. Cohen, and Craig A. Pugatch (Fort
Lauderdale), for respondent.
Before SCALES, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Petitioner, Southeast Enterprise Holdings, LLC, seeks certiorari relief
from an order overruling certain objections to a third-party subpoena issued
by respondent, Marquel, Inc. Southeast contends the documents subject to
disclosure are overbroad and irrelevant. It is well-settled that overbreadth
and irrelevance alone are not bases on which certiorari jurisdiction should
be granted. See Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ.
Enters., LLC,
99 So. 3d 450, 456 (Fla. 2012) (“This Court and other district
courts of appeal have restated with frequency that overbreadth is not
sufficient, nor is it a basis, for certiorari relief.”); Nucci v. Target Corp.,
162
So. 3d 146, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citation omitted) (“Overbreadth of
discovery alone is not a basis for certiorari jurisdiction. Similarly, mere
irrelevance is not enough to justify certiorari relief.”). And here, Southeast
has failed to demonstrate the documents subject to subpoena are privileged,
confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Consequently, the
record does not support the contention that the ruling by the trial court will
inflict harm irremediable on plenary appeal, and certiorari does not lie. See
Moore v. State,
135 So. 3d 462, 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
Writ dismissed.
2
