Paper Corp. of Am. v. Schneider, 563 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Paper Corp. of Am. v. Schneider, 563 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: pdrGrayson Dental Lab, LLC. v. Progressive Dental Reconstruction, Inc. (fladistctapp, 2016-11-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) pdrGrayson Dental Lab, LLC. v. Progressive Dental Reconstruction, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“Financial records and data which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded from discovery deposition or subpoena by transferring them to the client’s accountant.” Paper Corp. of Am. v. Schneider, 563 So.2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (requiring production of accountant’s copies of client’s income tax returns, financial statements, and records of the defendant’s assets and liabilities).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vellone v. First Union Brokerage Services, Inc.
D. Maryland · 2001 · confidence medium
As an initial matter, the Maryland Court of Appeals has ruled that “a client may not immunize otherwise discoverable materials from the reach of another party by transferring possession of those materials to an accountant.” Gussin, 714 A.2d at 196 (citing McNair, 885 P.2d at 579-80 (holding that accountant must produce documents because client would be compelled to produce the requested documents) and Paper Corp. of America v. Schneider, 563 So.2d 1134, 1135 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990) (holding that “[fjinancial records and data which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be sh…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sears v. Gussin
Md. · 1998 · confidence medium
See McNair v. District Court, 110 Nev. 1285 , 885 P.2d 576, 579-80 (1994) (holding that accountant must produce documents because client would be compelled to produce the requested documents); Paper Corp. of America v. Schneider, 563 So.2d 1134, 1135 (Fla.Ct.App.1990) (holding that “[f]inancial records and data which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded from discovery deposition or subpoena by transferring them to the client’s accountant”); cf. Ashcraft v. Harvey, 315 So.2d 530, 531 (Fla.Ct.App.1975) (noting that a client’s documents must be delivered from a…
cited Cited "see, e.g." West Coast Investors, LLC v. D.R. Horton, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 2020 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Paper Corp. of Am. v. Schneider, 563 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PAPER CORPORATION OF AMERICA D/B/a Saxon Paper-Florida, Appellant,
v.
Howard J. SCHNEIDER and Barry Garfield, Appellees.
90-959.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jul 17, 1990.
563 So. 2d 1134
Hubbart, Ferguson and Levy.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Robert J. Schaffer, Miami, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Paper Corporation of America d/b/a Saxon Paper-Florida, a judgment creditor, from an adverse non-final order entered in post-judgment execution proceedings brought against the defendant Barry Garfield, a judgment debtor. The non-final order under review grants the defendant's motion for a protective order and thereby precludes the plaintiff from (1) taking the deposition of Howard J. Schneider, the defendant's accountant, and (2) requiring Howard J. Schneider to produce copies of the defendant's income tax returns, the defendant's financial statements, and other records of the defendant's assets and liabilities, pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum; the subject non-final order also assesses $200 in attorney's fees against the plaintiff to be paid to Howard J. Schneider's counsel. The legal basis for entering the subject protective order was that the financial disclosure sought by the deposition and subpoena duces tecum was barred by the accountant-client privilege. §§ 90.5055, 473.316, Fla. Stat. (1989).

We reverse the order under review upon a holding that (a) the defendant was not privileged to withhold the otherwise relevant financial disclosure stated above in these post-judgment execution proceedings[*1135] if deposed or served with a subpoena duces tecum, Jim Appley's Tru-Arc, Inc. v. Liquid Extraction Sys. Ltd. Partnership, 526 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lumpkins v. Amendola, 466 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Albert v. Hartford Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 423 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and, accordingly, (b) the defendant cannot shield such legitimate disclosure by turning over the relevant financial records and data to his accountant and thereafter have his accountant assert the accountant-client privilege so as to block, as here, any deposition or subpoena duces tecum of the accountant. Financial records and data which are not privileged in the hands of the client cannot be shielded from discovery deposition or subpoena by transferring them to the client's accountant. See Goldberg v. Ross, 421 So.2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ashcraft v. Harvey, 315 So.2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Silverman v. Turner, 188 So.2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Both the protective order and the assessment of attorney's fees herein must therefore be reversed and the plaintiff upon remand shall be allowed to depose Howard J. Schneider and to enforce the subpoena duces tecum served upon Mr. Schneider.

Reversed and remanded.