RTING SERVICE, INC. 561-471-2995 PJW@PalTseacWPotftscp EFTA00617917 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Schwartzle versus Publix Super Markets is a case in which the appellate court, the Fourth DCA, was asked to address the issue of the inclusion of a confidentiality provision in a propos

udgment 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 the attorney of a non-par

udgment 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 the attorney of a non-par