final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari - original jurisdiction.
D. Anderson, Jr. and Sarah Jeck Hulsberg of Murphy &
Anderson, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
Vincent E. Verrocchio and John F. Cooney of Venable LLP,
Washington, DC, pro hac vice for Petitioner.
Michael Lindell of Lindell & Farson, P.A., Jacksonville,
Mayport Housing Partnership, Ltd., seeks certiorari review of
an order relating to the release of confidential partnership
records sought by Respondent, Robert Albani. Because Mayport
has not demonstrated the order will result in irreparable
harm, we dismiss the petition.
case originated below regarding Albani's status in the
partnership-whether he is a limited partner or merely holds a
transferee interest in Mayport. Mayport contends Albani is a
mere transferee with no right to access partnership records.
Albani asserts he is a limited partner, but argues that even
if he is only a transferee, he is entitled under
Mayport's Partnership Agreement to financial records to
determine whether the partnership has deprived him of
distributions to which he is entitled.
of the declaratory action to determine Albani's status
and rights, Albani requested production of several financial
documents. Mayport moved for a protective order, asserting
that section 620.1702, Florida Statutes, expressly provides
that a transferee of a partnership interest is not entitled
to partnership information or records, except upon
dissolution and winding up of the partnership, and that the
Partnership Agreement provides Albani no greater access
rights. Mayport argued that before disclosure of the records
could be allowed, the threshold issue of Albani's status
must be first determined by the trial court.
trial court ultimately entered an order finding that the
materials requested by Albani are reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding
entitlement to distributions, but providing that the
materials should only be produced with "proper
safeguards in place." The court directed the parties to
agree on a proposed joint confidentiality order or submit
separate proposed orders, and ordered that "[n]o
materials shall be produced until the Court enters a
confidentiality order." Mayport seeks review of the
order directing the parties to submit proposed
confidentiality orders, arguing that it will lead to the
disclosure of statutorily protected information.
petitioner challenging an order compelling disclosure of
confidential information has the burden to demonstrate
"that the trial court departed 'from the essential
requirements of law causing material harm for which there is
no adequate remedy on final appeal.'" Cordis
Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So.2d 1163, 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA
2008) (quoting Katz v. N.M.E. Hosps., Inc., 842
So.2d 853, 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)). "Irreparable harm
is the element that must be considered first as it is the
element that invokes the appellate court's
jurisdiction." Fla. Gas Transmission Co., LLC v.
City of Tallahassee, 230 So.3d 912, 913-14 (Fla. 1st DCA
2017) (citing Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Comm'n v. Jeffrey, 178 So.3d 460, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA
speaking, irreparable harm cannot be speculative, but must be
real and ascertainable." Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
v. Endicott, 81 So.3d 486, 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). An
order requiring the disclosure of confidential information is
recognized as an exception to this general rule, as it
requires the dissemination of information that, once
disclosed, cannot be remedied on appeal. Id. at 491;
see also D. Stephenson Constr., Inc. v. Mendiguren,
958 So.2d 527, 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that a
discovery order that violates the threshold requirement of a
statute "causes harm that cannot be remedied on appeal
because it requires disclosure of 'cat out of the
bag' material, i.e., confidential corporate
records"); Eugene J. Strasser, M.D., P.A. v. Bose
Yalamanchi, M.D., P.A., 669 So.2d 1142, 1145 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1996) (concluding petitioner demonstrated irreparable
harm based on potential disclosure of allegedly confidential
argues the order at issue requires the release of protected
information in a manner that cannot be remedied on appeal.
However, by its express language, the trial court's order
provides that no confidential information shall be produced
until further order establishing the terms of disclosure.
Thus, any injury to Mayport is too remote to invoke the
certiorari jurisdiction of this Court, which may be exercised
only upon a proper showing of irreparable harm. See
Stephens v. Wilmington Tr., Nat'l Ass'n, 209