Goldberg v. Ross

9 Citing cases

  1. Freestream Aircraft USA Ltd. v. Chowdry

    Civil No. 16-cv-81232-MATTHEWMAN (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2017)

    Under Florida law, "financial records and data which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded from discovery deposition or subpoena by transferring them to the client's accountant." Paper Corp. of Am. v. Schneider, 563 So. 2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citing Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ashcraft v. Harvey, 315 So.2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)); see also PDR Grayson Dental Lab, LLC v. Progressive Dental Reconstruction, Inc., 203 So. 3d 213, 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Maryland Accountant-Client Privilege

  2. Walsh

    202 F.R.D. 286 (N.D. Ala. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    Bank records of receipts and disbursements in lawyers' trust accounts are not privileged communications. Securities & Exchange Commission v. First Security Bank, 447 F.2d 166, 167 (10th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1038, 92 S.Ct. 710, 30 L.Ed.2d 729 (1972); O'Donnell v. Sullivan, 364 F.2d 43, 44 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 969, 87 S.Ct. 501, 17 L.Ed.2d 433 (1966); Harris v. United States, 413 F.2d 316, 319-20 (9th Cir.1969); Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). " The [attorney-client] privilege extends โ€˜ to the substance of matters communicated to an attorney in professional confidence.โ€™

  3. Garcia v. Yellow Cab Co.

    No. 3D24-0391 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep. 18, 2024)

    These records are not protected by attorney-client privilege. Millan L. Firm, P.A. v. Zambrano, 329 So.3d 814, 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).Because they are not privileged in the hands of Yellow Cab, they "cannot be shielded by transferring them to the attorney." Greenberg Traurig Hoffman Lipoff Rosen & Quentel, P.A. v. Bolton, 706 So.2d 97, 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (quoting Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669, 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)).

  4. Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L. v. Simmons

    151 So. 3d 42 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Because this financial information is not privileged in the hands of the client, it is not privileged in the hands of the attorney. Greenberg Traurig v. Bolton, 706 So.2d 97, 98โ€“99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding the attorney-client privilege does not extend to information reflecting a judgment debtor's assets which is held by a law firm); Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (holding that a judgment debtor's trust fund records are not protected by the attorney-client privilege because โ€œ[d]ocuments which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded by transferring them to the attorneyโ€). Because the records are not privileged, the Firm has failed to demonstrate that production of the documents would constitute irreparable harm.

  5. Carroll v. Maynoldi

    922 So. 2d 212 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

    The notes were therefore not privileged as attorney-client communication and did not become privileged when the attorney requested them. There is record support for such a finding. We therefore cannot find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law so as to warrant granting the petition for writ of certiorari.Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1987); Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Rehearing denied.

  6. Rosen Quentel v. Bolton

    706 So. 2d 97 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 7 times
    Holding the attorney-client privilege does not extend to information reflecting a judgment debtor's assets which is held by a law firm

    " John William Strong,McCormick on Evidence ยง 90 (4th Ed. 1992) (footnotes omitted); Cf. Mercado v. Parent, 421 So.2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Next, because the information and/or financial documents that Mr. Bolton is seeking regarding Ms. Buscemi's assets is not privileged in Ms. Buscemi's hands, they "cannot be shielded by transferring them to the attorney." Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Therefore, since the information sought is not privileged, the trial court's order departed from the essential requirements of law.

  7. Hardwick v. State

    683 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

    PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Fla. Stat. ยง 59.041 (1995); Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1317, 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995); Valle v. State, 581 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 986, 112 S.Ct. 597, 116 L.Ed.2d 621 (1991); White v. State, 377 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 1979); Jones v. State, 508 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Cason v. State, 508 So.2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 518 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 1987); Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

  8. Ex Parte Clark

    630 So. 2d 493 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 6 times

    Bank records of receipts and disbursements in lawyers' trust accounts are not privileged communications. Securities Exchange Commission v. First Security Bank, 447 F.2d 166, 167 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1038, 92 S.Ct. 710, 30 L.Ed.2d 729 (1972); O'Donnell v. Sullivan, 364 F.2d 43, 44 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 969, 87 S.Ct. 501, 17 L.Ed.2d 433 (1966); Harris v. United States, 413 F.2d 316, 319-20 (9th Cir. 1969); Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). "The [attorney-client] privilege extends 'to the substance of matters communicated to an attorney in professional confidence.' The deposit and disbursement of money in a commercial checking account are not confidential communications.

  9. Paper Corp. of America v. Schneider

    563 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that "[f]inancial records and data which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded from discovery deposition or subpoena by transferring them to the client's accountant"

    Financial records and data which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded from discovery deposition or subpoena by transferring them to the client's accountant. See Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ashcraft v. Harvey, 315 So.2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Both the protective order and the assessment of attorney's fees herein must therefore be reversed and the plaintiff upon remand shall be allowed to depose Howard J. Schneider and to enforce the subpoena duces tecum served upon Mr. Schneider.