final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower
Tribunal No. 18-4924 Barbara Areces, Judge.
Varela, P.A., and Alba Varela, for appellant.
Law, P.A., and William G. Essig, for appellee.
EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.
Condominium Association subpoenaed nonparty attorney Alba
Varela to appear for a deposition in the instant cause. The
subpoena further commanded her to produce at that deposition
a number of files, records and documents in her possession,
custody or control relating to several professional
associations or limited liability companies. Varela filed a
motion for protective order asserting, inter alia,
that the subpoena duces tecum sought documents protected by
the attorney-client privilege. The Association filed a motion
to compel her compliance with the subpoena duces tecum. On
April 26, 2018, the trial court denied Varela's motion
for protective order, and ordered Varela to appear at
deposition within thirty days and to produce at that
deposition all documents responsive to OLA Condominium's
subpoena. Varela's appeal followed.
that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Varela
to produce the subpoenaed documents without first conducting
an in camera hearing to address Varela's claim
of attorney-client privilege. We reverse both trial court
orders and remand for the trial court to conduct
an in camera hearing to determine whether the
documents sought by the subpoena duces tecum are in fact
protected by the attorney-client privilege, and for further
proceedings thereafter. See Del Carmen Calzon v. Capital
Bank, 689 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Alliant Ins.
Servs. Inc. v. Riemer Ins. Grp., 22 So.3d 779, 781 (Fla.
4th DCA 2009) (holding: "If a party seeks to compel the
disclosure of documents that the opposing party claims are
protected by attorney-client privilege, the party claiming
the privilege is entitled to an in camera review of the
documents by the trial court prior to disclosure").
and remanded with directions.
 We note that Varela properly sought
review through a notice of appeal rather than a petition for
certiorari in this case because she is not a party to the
litigation below. The order on appeal ended all judicial
labor in the case as to Varela and constitutes a final
appealable order. See United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v.
Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A., 233 So.3d
1224, 1230 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Florida House of
Representatives v. Expedia, Inc., 85 So.3d 517 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2012) (noting order compelling discovery which
adjudicates the rights of nonparties and otherwise meets the
general test of finality is a final appealable
 To the extent the trial court relied
for its ruling upon testimony from a prior hearing at which
Varela was neither present nor given notice and an
opportunity to be heard, this too was error. See Jade
Winds Ass'n, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 63 So.3d 819,
822 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (noting: "A basic element of
procedural due process is notice and an opportunity to be
 Two months after Varela filed her
notice of appeal from the trial court's April 26, 2018
order, the trial court rendered a second order, again
directing Varela to appear for deposition within thirty days
and to produce at that deposition the documents responsive to
OLA Condominium's subpoena duces tecum. Varela filed a