final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Lower Tribunal No. 14-27829, Antonio Arzola, Judge.
Restani & Dalmanieras, P.A., and Charles M-P George and
Maria E. Dalmanieras, for petitioners.
Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and Joel D. Eaton, for respondent.
LAGOA, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
Miami Beach Hotel Operating Co., Inc. ("Hotel"),
petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing an order
compelling disclosure of certain non-party identification
information in surveys completed by guests at the Hotel. For
the reasons which follow, we grant the petition and quash the
respondent here, Iman Kamal-Hashmat, as personal
representative of the estate of her late husband
("Plaintiff"), filed a complaint for damages for
the tragic drowning death of her husband at the Hotel's
swimming pool in Miami Beach in December 2013. During
pretrial discovery, the Plaintiff subpoenaed the Hotel's
guest survey service (a non-party) to produce:
All guest/customer surveys in any way related to the swimming
pool; and/or supervision of guests using the swimming pool,
at the Loews Miami Beach Hotel, located at 1601 Collins
Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139, from December 2008 to
the present. Please also include any other documents related
to such surveys.
Hotel objected. Initially, the trial court authorized the
Hotel to redact any allegedly confidential financial or
proprietary company information. The Hotel provided the
Plaintiff with a spreadsheet provided by the guest survey
service, but the Plaintiff moved to compel. The Hotel then
received another database from the survey service containing
information related to the swimming pool and extracted from
the guest surveys. The Hotel informed the trial court that
the database contained confidential information regarding
guests; the court ordered the Hotel to produce the database
with a privilege log pertaining to any information withheld
from the survey responses.
Hotel filed the database with the guest names and contact
information redacted, together with a privilege log claiming
that the redacted information was private and protected under
Article 1, section 23, of the Florida Constitution. The
Plaintiff moved to compel the production of the redacted
information, and the trial court granted the motion. The
Hotel then filed the petition for certiorari under
names and contact information of the non-party Hotel guests
who completed the surveys are constitutionally protected,
private details. Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv.,
Inc., 500 So.2d 533, 536 (Fla. 1987); Amente v.
Newman, 653 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1995). There is no
indication on the record before us that the Plaintiff's