MELISSA GABARRO v. THE WELL GROOMED GENTLEMAN INC (2022)

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court's July 6, 2022, discovery order granting Respondent The Well Groomed Gentleman, Inc.’s motion to compel production of “the documentation referenced in the court's order dated April 24, 2022.” The lower court's April 24, 2022, discovery order directed Petitioner, at the April 27, 2022, deposition, to produce certain confidential “documents or information related to Ms. Gabarro's current and former clients ․ solely and exclusively to the attorneys, the parties, and their respective experts.” Petitioner, though, neither produced the discovery nor sought certiorari review of the April 24, 2022, discovery order.

Because Petitioner failed to seek certiorari review of the April 24, 2022, discovery order within thirty (30) days of its rendition, see Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c)(1), the Court lacks certiorari jurisdiction to review Petitioner's objections to producing the subject documents and information. Although certiorari generally lies to review orders compelling production of privileged material, the July 6, 2022, discovery order merely provided a new deadline for Petitioner to produce documents and information that the trial court, in its April 24, 2022, discovery order, had already ordered Petitioner to produce by a prior date. The July 6, 2022, discovery order did not extend the time period for Petitioner to bring their certiorari challenge to any aspect of the April 24, 2022, discovery order. See Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 980 So. 2d 1226, 1228–29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“The petition for writ of certiorari was filed within thirty days from rendition of the July 25, 2007 order, but that order merely reaffirmed the court's earlier ruling that the claimant is required to submit to an independent medical examination. An untimely appeal cannot be revived by obtaining a new order to the same effect as the original and then filing the notice of appeal within thirty days of the more recent order. Of course, the same is true of the jurisdictional time period for seeking review by certiorari.”) (citations omitted).

Petition dismissed.

Petitioner's Motion for Appellate Attorney's Fees and Costs is hereby denied.

EMAS, SCALES and GORDO, JJ., concur.