PAN AMERICAN BANK OF ORLANDO, P.A., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gordon J. Barnett, Petitioner, v. ORANGE COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondent.
No. 84-1352.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 27, 1984.
N. James Turner, Orlando, for petitioner.
Philip H. Trees and G. Robertson Dilg, Orlando, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for certiorari in this case to review a trial court order denying petitioner’s motion to compel discovery, is denied. See Industrial Tractor Company v. Bartlett, 454 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). See generally Haddad, The Common Law Writ of Certiorari in Florida, 29 U.Fla.L. Rev. 207, 224 (1977).
The underlying discovery question here sought to be presented by certiorari review of an interlocutory trial order, and which we do not now reach, is whether documents protected by the attorney-client privilege (see § 90.502(2), Fla.Stat.) are exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act (see § 119.07(3)(a), Fla.Stat.). This interesting point of law can be presented on direct appeal in the event petitioner loses in the trial court and then desires review by appeal from the final judgment.
DENIED.
COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
concurring specially:
In my opinion petitioner has not established a sufficient basis for us to require the discovery he seeks. Thus I agree we should not grant certiorari. Industrial Tractor Company v. Bartlett, 454 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) says appellate courts do not generally grant certiorari to remedy errors in denying discovery. I agree also with that statement. If it be inferred by anyone, however, that orders denying discovery can never be the subject of a writ of certiorari, then I suggest the inference is erroneous. Some orders denying discovery are properly reviewed by cer-tiorari.