ntiary hearing is not required. See Strasser v. Yalmanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, 699 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1997); Solis v. Calvo, 689 So.2d 366, 369, n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In fact, a hearing is not even required provided the trial court identifies the filings of the parties a

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

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

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