Associate Attorney
In Sasha Investments LLC v. Staghorn Development, LLC, the Third District Court of Appeal addressed the scope of post-judgment discovery in aid of execution and reminded practitioners just how expansive Florida’s post-judgment discovery rules can be.
The case arose from an unsatisfied multi-million-dollar judgment obtained by Sasha Investments against Staghorn Development and related entities. After the judgment debtors defaulted under a negotiated settlement agreement, the trial court ordered them to complete fact information sheets and provide financial information pursuant to Rule 1.560. The debtors failed to comply and were ultimately adjudged in civil contempt.
Faced with the debtors’ continued noncompliance, the judgment creditor served a deposition duces tecum on the debtors’ former law firm seeking non-privileged documents relating to the debtors’ assets and financial transactions. The law firm objected, generally invoking attorney-client privilege and arguing that the requested information related to asset and transactional matters. The trial court entered protective orders shielding the law firm from producing the requested materials without conducting an in-camera review or requiring document-specific objections.
The Third DCA granted certiorari relief and quashed the orders. In doing so, the court reiterated that Florida affords judgment creditors expansive post-judgment discovery rights. Quoting Rule 1.560(a), the court emphasized that, “[i]n aid of a judgment, decree, or execution the judgment creditor … may obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor.” The court further explained that “the creditor has the right to discover any assets the debtor might have that could be subject to levy or execution to satisfy the judgment, or assets that the debtor might have recently transferred.”
To be sure, Florida courts have cautioned against post-judgment “fishing expeditions” designed to “pry into the assets and business of persons other than the judgment debtor.” But those same cases recognize that a non-party may be subjected to post-judgment discovery when the judgment creditor can demonstrate “a good reason and close link between the unrelated entity and the judgment debtor.”
Here, that link was readily apparent. The judgment debtors had already been held in contempt for failing to provide the very financial information the judgment creditor was seeking. Under those circumstances, the Third DCA held that the judgment creditor was not required to simply wait and hope for future compliance or artificially limit its discovery efforts solely to the judgment debtors themselves.
The court also rejected the notion that the requested information was categorically protected by attorney-client privilege. Significantly, the court noted that asset-related information in the possession of a law firm is not automatically shielded by attorney-client privilege. Financial and transactional information—such as bank accounts, transfers, and receipts—is often discoverable and does not become privileged merely because it passes through an attorney’s office. While truly privileged communications remain protected, blanket assertions of privilege are insufficient. Instead, trial courts should utilize document-specific objections and in-camera review where necessary.
Practice pointers
- Florida provides judgment creditors with broad discovery rights in aid of execution.
- Discovery may be obtained from any person, not just the judgment debtor.
- Non-parties may be subject to post-judgment discovery when there is a good reason and close link to the judgment debtor.
- A judgment debtor’s noncompliance with post-judgment discovery obligations may justify broader third-party discovery.
- Asset and financial information in the possession of attorneys is not automatically protected by attorney-client privilege.
- Blanket privilege objections are disfavored; courts should instead employ document-specific objections and in-camera review.
Takeaway: Proceedings supplementary and post-judgment discovery are designed to help judgment creditors actually collect their judgments. When judgment debtors fail to comply with discovery obligations or there is reason to believe assets have been transferred or concealed, Florida law gives creditors significant latitude to pursue discovery from third parties. This case is a good reminder that courts should not allow broad privilege assertions or overly restrictive discovery orders to frustrate legitimate collection efforts.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.