final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 16-16680 Jose M.
Offices of George W. Wickhorst, P.A., and George W.
Wickhorst, III, for petitioner.
Farrell Patel Jomarron & Lopez, and Jesmany Jomarron and
Rachel A. Canfield, for respondents.
ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and SCALES, JJ.
Rivero seeks a writ of certiorari quashing orders denying his
motion to determine a court record as confidential and his
motion for reconsideration. For the reasons which follow, we
deny the petition.
case originated with Rivero's claims for defamation and
injunctive relief due to an anonymous online blog posting of
a negative comment on a public website. The post contained
Rivero's mugshot from a previously-sealed criminal
proceeding. Rivero claims that Oscar Farach was the author of
the comment, and that Farach's hired counsel improperly
threatened to serve a litigation hold letter, attaching the
anonymous comment, to more than one hundred potential
witnesses. After one witness confirmed receipt of the letter,
Rivero filed a second amended complaint naming Farach, as
well as Farach's attorney and law firm, as defendants.
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a cause of action, including Rivero's failure to
attach a copy of the alleged defamatory statement to the
complaint. The trial court granted the motion, but permitted
Rivero to file a third amended complaint attaching the
allegedly defamatory online blog post.
with the trial court's order, Rivero attached, as an
exhibit, a screenshot of the online blog post, while also
filing a motion to determine the confidentiality of the
attachment. The trial court denied the motion, concluding
that the attached exhibit was not a court record subject to
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420. After the
denial of a motion for reconsideration, Rivero sought
Requirements for Certiorari Relief
obtain certiorari relief, the petitioner must establish the
following three elements: "(1) a departure from the
essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material
injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be
corrected on post judgment appeal." Reeves v.
Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812, 822 (Fla.
2004). With respect to the first element, a trial court's
ruling departs from the essential requirements of the law
when it violates a "clearly ...