Epstein Secrets

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

her post-judgment action seeking to compel payments that the ex-husband owed under a previously entered final judgment dissolving their marriage. In Toledo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 30 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the Fourth District held that a party cannot issue an indiscriminate request to t

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

her post-judgment action seeking to compel payments that the ex-husband owed under a previously entered final judgment dissolving their marriage. In Toledo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 30 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the Fourth District held that a party cannot issue an indiscriminate request to t

inton and former Vice President, Al Gore, which, even if such documents existed, would be absolutely irrelevant to the Florida Defamation Action. See Toledo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 30 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 4" DCA 2010). Defendant’s requests can be grouped into four key categories: (1) documents that co

at the contents of the “subpoena is a classic ‘fishing expedition’ and the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”); Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (quashing subpoena served on wife’s bank for financial records finding them irrelevant: “indeed, the