Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. et al v. Castle Law Group, P.C. et al
ORDER denying 129 Objection to 118 Order. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 3/7/2018. (ED)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB, INC.
and WILSON RESORT FINANCE,
Case No: 6:17-cv-1044-Orl-31DCI
CASTLE LAW GROUP, P.C., JUDSON
PHILLIPS ESQ, CASTLE MARKETING
GROUP, LLC, CASTLE VENTURE
GROUP, LLC, RESORT RELIEF, LLC,
WILLIAM MICHAEL KEEVER, KEVIN
HANSON and SEAN AUSTIN,
This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Objection (Doc. 129) filed by
Defendants Resort Relief, LLC (henceforth, “Resort Relief”) and Kevin Hanson (“Hanson”) to the
Order (Doc. 118) of the Magistrate Judge granting in part a motion to compel (Doc. 107).
Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, within ten days after receiving a
nondispositive order issued by a magistrate judge, a party may file objections to the order, and the
district court must consider the objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
After a hearing on the motion, Magistrate Judge Irick granted the motion to compel insofar
as it sought to require Resort Relief and Hanson to respond to requests for production 18, 19, and
32. (Doc. 118 at 3). Resort Relief and Hanson now object only to that portion of the Order
requiring them to respond to request for production 18. (Doc. 129 at 2). In request for
production 18, the Plaintiffs sought all documents “relating to the ownership, corporate formation,
and current or former corporate status of Resort Relief, LLC.” (Doc. 129 at 2). Both Defendants
objected to production of some of the responsive documents in their possession – primarily federal
tax returns and IRS forms – on the grounds of “privilege … based on the rights to privacy” of the
producing party. (Doc. 129 at 2). Judge Irick ordered the Defendants to produce the documents,
permitting them to make redactions as to Hanson’s Social Security number and date of birth.
(Doc. 118 at 3).
Resort Relief and Hanson argue that Judge Irick’s order was clearly erroneous and contrary
to law based on Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution, which provides that “[e]very
natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s
private life except as provided herein.” (Doc. 129 at 3). They also argue that the requested
documents are not relevant, because the Plaintiffs argued that the documents might be necessary to
help them pierce the corporate veil, and the operative pleading does not contain allegations that
would permit veil-piercing. (Doc. 129 at 4).
However, the Defendants, who are residents of Texas, have not cited to any cases holding
that the Florida Constitution’s right to privacy applies to residents of other states. In addition,
that right by its terms only applies to natural persons, which Resort Relief is not. And it would
not apply in a discovery dispute in federal court. See, e.g., U.S. v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S.
805, 816 (1984) (noting that no state-created evidentiary privilege has ever been recognized in
federal court). As for relevancy, Judge Irick properly found at the hearing that the Defendants
waived any relevancy objection they might have had by failing to raise it in their response to the
request for production.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Objection (Doc. 129) filed by Defendants Resort Relief, LLC and
Kevin Hanson is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on March 7, 2018.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?