HURLEY v. SCHANZ (2025)

In this action challenging the domestication of a final default judgment from North Carolina, Matthew Hurley (“Petitioner”) seeks a writ of certiorari quashing portions of the trial court's order compelling him to respond to John Schanz's (“Respondent”) discovery seeking information about Petitioner's personal finances and any businesses Petitioner created, owned, or operated. Petitioner contends this information is protected under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution and is not discoverable because it is irrelevant to the issues presented. Since the protection afforded under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution does not extend to businesses, Network Comms. of N.W. Fla., Inc. v. Dep't of Rev., 334 So. 3d 707, 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), Petitioner has not shown he will be irreparably harmed by disclosing information about businesses he created, owned, or operated. As for Petitioner's personal finances, while protected under article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution, Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544, 548 (Fla. 1985), Petitioner has not shown the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by ordering its disclosure because the information could be relevant to a key issue—whether the North Carolina court had personal jurisdiction over Petitioner. See Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla. 2003) (explaining “courts will compel production of personal financial documents and information if shown to be relevant by the requesting party” to “the disputed issues of the underlying action”). For these reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed in part and denied in part.

DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

NARDELLA, J.

TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL, J., concur.