Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 9, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D20-1311 Lower Tribunal No. 17-10899 ________________ Geilan Sahmoud, Petitioner, vs. Gamal Marwan, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David H. Young, Judge. Buchbinder & Elegant, P.A., and Harris J. Buchbinder, for petitioner. Gamal Marwan, in proper person. Before SCALES, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ. BOKOR, J. Petitioner, Geilan Sahmoud, brings this original petition for certiorari seeking to quash a trial court order in a contempt and enforcement action directing her to comply with a request for production brought by Sahmoud’s former husband, Gamal Marwan. Sahmoud alleges that the requested documents, which include her passport and other documents relating to her application for political asylum in the United States, are irrelevant to the underlying action and would likely result in harassment if provided. Thus, she contends that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by overruling her objections and ordering that the request be granted. To be entitled to certiorari relief, a petitioner must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in irreparable harm that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. See, e.g., Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004). A “departure from the essential requirements of the law” is more than mere legal error; it requires a showing of “a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95–96 (Fla. 1983). Further, “[s]ince it is impossible to list all possible legal errors serious enough to constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law, the district courts must be allowed a large degree of discretion so that they may judge each case individually.” Id. 2 Here, even if we were to agree that the requested discovery is irrelevant to the underlying action, we see no “‘cat out of the bag’ material that could be used to injure another person or party outside the context of the litigation.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995) (quoting in part Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 1987)). The discovery request here arose in the context of a contempt and enforcement action wherein Sahmoud claimed that Marwan had failed to make various alimony, child support, and equitable distribution payments in accordance with the marital settlement agreement incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution. Sahmoud also sought an order preventing Marwan from travelling out of the country with their children, asserting that Marwan, an Egyptian national, concealed or divested various assets in America and may have been planning to flee the country with the children. Shortly thereafter, Marwan filed a request for production of all documents relating to Sahmoud’s ongoing attempt to permanently relocate to America, asserting that Sahmoud’s pending application for political asylum was fraudulent …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals