FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: EVIDENCE NEEDED TO OBTAIN FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Individuals can become involved in lawsuits in different ways. Sometimes an individual must commence a lawsuit to protect his or her rights. Other times, an individual must defend himself or herself in a lawsuit brought by another. A third possibility is that an individual is the recipient of a subpoena for documents, testimony, or both issued by a plaintiff or defendant in an existing lawsuit. The rules of civil procedure allow litigants to subpoena non-parties to obtain information needed for the lawsuit and the recipient is generally required to respond by providing the information, documents, or materials requested. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.351 (“A party may seek inspection and copying of any documents or things within the scope of rule 1.350(a) from a person who is not a party by issuance of a subpoena directing the production of the documents or things when the requesting party does not seek to depose the custodian or other person in possession of the documents or things.”). However, a non-party subpoena recipient should not resign himself or herself to producing the information without considering whether that information contains the confidential information. The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

Non-party litigants do not always have to produce information responsive to a subpoena, especially when the information pertains to an individual’s financial data. Article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution protects the financial information of persons if there is no relevant or compelling reason warranting disclosure. Rappaport v. Mercantile Bank, 17 So. 3d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“The right of privacy set forth in article 1, section 23, of the Florida Constitution ‘undoubtedly expresses a policy that compelled disclosure through discovery be limited to that which is necessary for a court to determine contested issues.’”); Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“[T]hird party financial records … are of the utmost sensitivity and are not discoverable unless the party seeking discovery establishes a need for the discovery sufficient to overcome the privacy rights of the third party.”). A non-party can be irreparably harmed when his or her financial information is produced without an affirmative showing of relevancy based on evidence. Rowe v. Rodriguez-Schmidt, 89 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (granting the petition for certiorari and quashing the trial court’s order compel discovery from the non-party because disclosure would irreparably harm the non-party); Inglis v. Casselberry, 200 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 2D DCA 2016) (The party seeking discovery concerning a non-party “bears the burden of proving that the information sought is relevant or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence….due to the strong public policy underlying this constitutional protection of private financial information.”). The heightened standard afforded to non-parties was created to prevent irreparable harm that often results from the disclosing sensitive information. Oramas v. Asencio, 415 So. 3d 302 (Fla. 3 DCA 2025) (“This heightened standard is necessary because the disclosure of personal financial information may cause irreparable harm to a person forced to disclose it, in a case in which the information is not relevant.”).

 The law provides non-parties with an ability to prevent the discourse of their information when it is private and sensitive. The recipient of a subpoena should carefully review the information requested to determine whether it seeks private and sensitive information and whether the requesting party demonstrated relevancy by proffering evidence. If no showing was made, it is possible the subpoena recipient can successfully object to providing the information. The converse is also true. Business should be prepared to present evidence demonstrating the relevancy of the financial information and other confidential information requested from non-party individuals.

The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.