Opinion
No. 1D22-559
06-15-2022
ALACHUA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, v. Catherine BARNES, Respondent.
Linda Bond Edwards and Jeffrey J. Grosholz of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner. Ashley N. Richardson of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Linda Bond Edwards and Jeffrey J. Grosholz of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Ashley N. Richardson of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Jay, J. Petitioner, Alachua County School Board ("the Board"), seeks certiorari review of a trial court discovery order in a civil action that Respondent, Catherine Barnes, filed against the Board. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the Board's petition.
Barnes sued the Board for alleged violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act and the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Board denied Barnes’ claims, arguing that she cannot prove prima facie cases of discrimination and retaliation. In discovery, the Board sought the production of documents from non-parties concerning Barnes’ healthcare and employment histories. Barnes objected, arguing that the Board's requests were too broad, were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and violated her right to privacy.
In its "Order Regarding Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Notice of Production from Non-Parties," the trial court sustained Barnes’ objections. As to the Board's requests for documents from Barnes’ medical and psychiatric care providers, the trial court ruled that it would review the responsive documents in camera . As part of its review, the trial court would give Barnes an opportunity to inspect the responsive documents and file a privilege log that listed her proposed redactions. The trial court would then rule on each proposed redaction.
As to the Board's requests for documents from Barnes’ current and former employers, the trial court ruled that the requests were overbroad. The trial court ordered the Board to modify its requests by narrowing them to Barnes’ applications for employment, job descriptions, pay and benefit records, and time and attendance records.
The Board now seeks certiorari review of the trial court's order. In its petition, the Board argues that the trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of law and that without certiorari review, the Board will suffer material harm that cannot be remedied on plenary appeal.
Absent a threshold showing of irreparable harm, an appellate court has no jurisdiction to grant certiorari review of a trial court's order. Mayport Hous. P'ship, Ltd. v. Albani , 244 So. 3d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). "For a denial of discovery to constitute material, irreparable harm, thus conferring certiorari jurisdiction, the denial must ‘effectively eviscerate a party's claim, defense, or counterclaim.’ " CQB, 2010, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon , 177 So. 3d 644, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem'l Hosp. Found., Inc. , 8 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ). Thus, certiorari, which is already an "extremely rare" remedy, becomes "even rarer" as to orders denying discovery because the petitioner "almost invariably" cannot demonstrate irreparable harm. CQB, 177 So. 3d at 645 ; see also Eutsay v. State , 103 So. 3d 181, 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ("Unlike situations where a trial court erroneously compels the exchange of information (the proverbial ‘cat out of the bag’ orders), the harm done by the failure to provide information can be corrected on appeal in most cases.").
Such is true here. The Board cannot show how the trial court's order, which provides for an in camera review of responsive documents and the opportunity for the Board to revise its subpoenas, "effectively eviscerates" the Board's ability to defend against Barnes’ lawsuit. Indeed, it is not yet known what documents the Board will ultimately receive. Thus, at this early stage, any alleged injury to the Board is far too remote and speculative to invoke this Court's certiorari jurisdiction. See Mayport Hous. , 244 So. 3d at 1177–78.
Accordingly, the Board has failed to establish irreparable harm, and we dismiss the petition because we lack jurisdiction. See Bd. of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC , 99 So. 3d 450, 454–55 (Fla. 2012).
DISMISSED .
Ray and Winokur, JJ., concur.