DE ARMAS v. DE ARMAS (2025)

After producing limited cropped screenshots of WhatsApp and text messages lacking timestamps or any sender or recipient information, the trial court ordered the Petitioner Maidel de Armas to submit her mobile device for forensic imaging. This was done to obtain accurate message data and metadata concerning communications, which are relevant to the lawsuit. She now petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking to quash that order.

To obtain a writ of certiorari, a party must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law that results in material injury that cannot be corrected on plenary appeal. Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004). But Petitioner has failed to prove that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Talley v. Consol. Respondents, 350 So. 3d 415, 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“Accordingly, the trial court could not have departed from the essential requirements of law, especially when Petitioners concede that the text messages contain relevant information and the trial court has gone to great lengths to ensure that any specific privacy or privilege concerns may still be addressed in the future.”); Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc., 148 So. 3d 163, 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“The record here indicates that the trial court closely considered how to balance Respondents’ discovery rights and the decedent's privacy rights. The order highlighted the relevance of the cellphone's data to the Respondents’ defense and it set forth strict procedures controlling how the inspection process would proceed.”). As a result, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

Petition denied.

PER CURIAM.