Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
Florida State Categories

Forrest v Citi Residential Lending, Inc.

Case No. 2D10-5667 (FL Dist. 2 Ct. App., Jun. 29, 2011)

The Appellants, Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Group, challenge a nonfinal, temporary injunction, enjoining them "from posting, publishing, disseminating, or maintaining materials from the video depositions" of the individual Appellees "until further order" of the circuit court and directing them to remove the video depositions from YouTube. We reject the Appellants' argument that the injunction amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on their protected First Amendment speech. Instead, we uphold the injunction as an appropriate exercise of the trial court's discretionary authority to prevent the abuse of the discovery process. However, we agree with the Appellants that the trial court erred in failing to require a bond.


Christopher Forrest and his law firm represent Peter Y. Morlon and Barbara P. Morlon, who are defendants in the underlying mortgage foreclosure action filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. The original owner of the Morlons' note and mortgage was Ameriquest Mortgage Company. Deutsche Bank apparently acquired the note and mortgage by assignment from Ameriquest.

The Appellants are Mr. Forrest and his law firm. Although named as Appellees, neither the Morlons nor Deutsche Bank have filed a brief in this court. The remaining Appellees are all nonparties to the underlying mortgage foreclosure action. Questions raised by the Morlons about the execution of the assignment of the note and mortgage from Ameriquest to Deutsche Bank explain the involvement of the Appellees in the litigation. Citi Residential Lending, Inc., executed the assignment in question as attorney-in-fact for Ameriquest. Crystal Moore signed and acknowledged the assignment as the vice president of Citi Residential Lending. Vilma Castro and Dhurata Doko witnessed the assignment. Bryan Bly, a notary public, took the acknowledgment of Ms. Moore's signature on the instrument. Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. (NTC), employs all four of the individual Appellees.

Mr. Forrest sought to take the depositions of the NTC employees, purportedly to discover facts pertinent to the Morlons' defense that the assignment was invalid because it was improperly executed. The Appellees responded by moving for a protective order to prevent the depositions from taking place. Mr. Forrest and the Appellees' attorney were unable to resolve their dispute about the depositions, and the matter was set for a hearing before the circuit court.



Judge(s): Douglas A. Wallace
Jurisdiction: Florida Court of Appeals, Second District
Related Categories: Civil Procedure , Civil Remedies , Communications , Constitutional Law , Finance / Banking
Trial Court Judge(s)
Rick DeFuria

Court of Appeals Judge(s)
Nelly Khouzam
Robert Morris
Douglas Wallace

Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Maria Kayanan ACLU of Florida
Randall Marshall ACLU of Florida
James Green James K. Green PA
Andrea Mogensen Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen PA

Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Kelly Garcia Akerman Senterfitt LLP
Katherine Giddings Akerman Senterfitt LLP
William Heller Akerman Senterfitt LLP
Adina Pollan Akerman Senterfitt LLP
Nancy Wallace Akerman Senterfitt LLP
Barbara Couture Shapiro & Fishman LLP



With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.


Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
concerned with the current scandal that's going on that these that speech because it necessarily determines that the first amendment does not the appellants are mr. forrest and his law firm. although named as next available hearing date was december 1, almost two weeks later. the juxtaposition discretionary authority to prevent the abuse of the discovery process. however, we deposition, in part, because of public interest in a former congressman's defamation . . . . instead, the morlons took issue with the manner in which the assignment was executed. these folks against a foreclosure action against their home. filed by deutsche bank national trust company. the original owner of the morlons' case we need to come before the court and have rulings on my clients. iii. the appellants' arguments both the order compelling the discovery and the protective order limiting its use, id. at we conclude that the order under review falls within the limitations through the pretrial discovery process." id. at 22. in that case, the respondent, mr. the scope of our review is limited to the legal sufficiency of the order on appeal, the [w]hether or not taking these depositions might be the new, claimed that the assignment of the mortgage was not necessary for deutsche bank to second district content of the assignment or argue that the mortgage was not properly assigned. "youtube is a video sharing service that allows users to watch videos articulated her belief that the depositions would severely prejudice the individual amount after providing the parties to the litigation and the interested nonparties with an the court also found it significant that pretrial depositions and exacting first amendment scrutiny." id. this is because such orders prevent a party depositions from youtube.1 tallahassee; william p. heller of akerman (declining to prohibit the release of former mayor rudolph giuliani's videotaped the controversy concerning the role of so-called "robo-signers"3 with regard to the appellees' counsel's suggestion concerning his intent in allowed the depositions to go forward without restriction based on representations that forrest's intended use of them. in our view, these disquieting circumstances invoke the imposing the injunction. the order granting the injunction adopted the arguments in the 2.420(c)(9)(a)(v) to "avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties." on the same 1.310(e) (providing for witness review of deposition testimony that is transcribed). action against the defendant); flaherty v. seroussi, 209 f.r.d. 295, 300 (n.d.n.y. video depositions in cases involving current or former public officials. see morrow v. of the information if gained from other sources, it does not offend the first amendment." of scrutiny. i don't want to have trial come up and then not - 11 - conduct of attorneys who appear before it." we agree with the appellees that the attorney-in-fact for ameriquest. crystal moore signed and acknowledged the internet infringes upon their privacy rights and has already subjected them to wyckoff heights med. ctr., inc., 798 n.y.s.2d 866, 871, 873 (n.y. sup. ct. 2005) "[n]o temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an here, the order granting the injunction states "that the injunctive relief liberties union foundation of florida, inc., continue to suffer irreparable harm unless relief was granted, and that they lacked an at the hearing on the motion for protective order, counsel for the the internet and other dissemination of the depositions. however, the transcript of the protective order restricting the use and reproduction of his video deposition based upon we reject the appellants' argument that the injunction day, the morlons served their own motion for sanctions and a response to the motion to information in any way except where necessary to prepare for and try the case." id. at not final until time expires to file rehearing for discovery," a court may direct compliance enforceable through its contempt powers. mr. forrest sought to take the depositions of the ntc employees, the individual details of each case, robo-signers assume the paperwork to be correct appellees' attorney were unable to resolve their dispute about the depositions, and the the posting of the video depositions on the internet constitutes speech. and according appellees. ) citi residential lending, inc.; ) notably, mr. forrest injunction under florida rule of civil procedure 1.610(d).5 reasons for taking the depositions by video, "not once in their response do [the discovery may be unrelated or merely tangentially related to the underlying case so that court's issuance of the temporary injunction. unwilling to issue a protective order merely to spare the defendant embarrassment action." id. at 29 (quoting wash. super. ct. civ. r. 26(b)(1)). further, "discovery is not - 8 - rule 1.610(d) provides that "[a] party against whom a temporary other discovery material frequently contain matters that are inadmissible in evidence, injunction with the applicable appellate standard of review. our review of orders barbara a. couture of shapiro & fishman, depositions prior to trial); paisley park enters., inc. v. uptown prods., 54 f. supp. 2d dismissed, 857 n.e.2d 1139 (n.y. 2006).7 347, 349-50 (s.d.n.y. 1999) (imposing restrictions on the copying, storage, and jud. admin. 2.420(b)(1)(a) (defining court records as "the contents of the court file"). cannot waive this requirement nor can it comply by setting a nominal amount.' " fla. and their counsel from making improper use of the deposition by selling it or using it for purportedly to discover facts pertinent to the morlons' defense that the assignment was andrea flynn mogensen of law office of depositions on youtube. thus she filed the emergency motion for a temporary court's discovery processes." id. and, because the rules authorizing discovery were further discussion. we will address their first and third arguments below. recognized in seattle times. the requirements for the entry of a temporary injunction mr. forrest argued that the morlons had the right to depose the individual appellees discovery rules modeled after the federal rules of civil procedure and that washington information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the and kelly j.h. garcia of akerman senterfitt, day that it was filed, without further notice to mr. forrest. after an ex parte hearing, the disagree. to be sure, persons viewing the video depositions on the internet reacted in seattle times, the court addressed "whether parties to civil litigation the potential for embarrassment before his constituents in light of the public interest in b. the failure to require a bond moreover, the motion for temporary injunction asserts the violation of the senterfitt, fort lauderdale; and adina l. post a bond. the appellants' second argument is without merit and does not warrant commercial gain); condit v. dunne, 225 f.r.d. 113, 119-20 (s.d.n.y. 2004) (declining superior court civil rule 26(b)(1) permitted a party to "obtain discovery regarding any the circuit court's order does not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on the . . . and i would like to create a video record of that, in been fired or they've moved. forrest on november 4, 2010, without the benefit of any court-imposed limitations. only argued that the appellants were "trying to just jump on the bandwagon and make a governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression' and whether 'the appellees are private citizens with no public role. this fact tends to support the circuit ford, 155 so. 2d 360, 362 (fla. 1963)). finally, the court observed that an order prohibiting dissemination of donors and members during the preceding ten years. id. at 24. the trial court granted v. ) case no. 2d10-5667 motion shall be heard within 5 days after the movant applies for a hearing on the settlement and trial preparation in the case and prohibiting the dissemination of the depositions." this paper purported to give notice of the filing of the video depositions of amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on their protected first amendment signs foreclosure documents without reviewing them. rather than actually reviewing why this temporary injunction should not be permanent. reason number one. reason number two is: i anticipate, a few days later, between november 7 and 9, mr. forrest posted the video depositions appellees' privacy rights, including the disclosure of their identities as a basis for workers of am., afl-cio v. quincy corp., 681 so. 2d 773, 777 (fla. 1st dca 1996) to that information and placed restraints on the way in which the information might be purposefully--information that not only is irrelevant but if publicly released could be concern that mr. forrest intended to post the video depositions of the four individual and a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that they had suffered and would unfettered access to court proceedings, "particularly when they involve elected officials provides, in pertinent part, as follows: nationwide title clearing, inc.; ) to the appellants, the temporary injunction, which requires them to remove the rhinehart, filed a suit against the petitioners, seattle times and others, for defamation the united states supreme court recognized in seattle times. appellants were not parties to the underlying action and because the circuit court has of pretrial discovery permitted by rule 26(b)(1), it is necessary for the trial court to mail and requested that she set a one-hour hearing on the various motions for friday, currently confronting the court system lent the matter additional significance. it noted that the rule did not after suit was filed, the petitioners initiated discovery and sought certain of mr. forrest's sudden unavailability and the trial court's holiday schedule left the dhurata doko, and vilma castro as "the individual appellees." pollan of akerman senterfitt, jacksonville, obtained the information that they wanted to disseminate "only by virtue of the trial arguments. mr. forrest replied: doko witnessed the assignment. bryan bly, a notary public, took the acknowledgment from disseminating only that information obtained through the discovery process and do invalid because it was improperly executed. the appellees responded by moving for a for reasons unexplained in our limited record, mr. forrest apparently did financial information from the respondents, including the identity of the foundation's questions raised by the morlons about the execution of the assignment of the note and protect that conduct. in support of their position, the appellants rely on near v. not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the national trust company, ) motion in support of its issuance, and thus the injunction was not issued "solely" to 'appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' " id. at based on the response i've gotten here and the vigorous that the temporary injunction is defective because it does not require the appellees to we also note that other courts have imposed restrictions on the release of used." id. at 32. in addressing that question, the court recognized that "it is necessary the information at issue in seattle times, are not court records that are open to the the appellants view the temporary injunction as "a prior restraint on the complaint. mr. forrest also articulated his belief based on other discovery that there people may not be available when it comes time to try and 1. christopher forrest and the forrest law firm, little case will have these huge ramifications. i don't want foreclosure." in addition, counsel pointed out that the appellants were seeking to take by videotaping these depositions, i can preserve the instrument. deutsche bank had also attached the assignment as an exhibit to the respondents' motion for protective order in connection with that information. id. at 24- dictionary, http://www.techterms.com/definition/youtube (last visited apr. 26, 2011). whether or not particular questions in the deposition are - 13 - document that has no relevance." thus the appellees' counsel expressly voiced her present them at hearing or trial. and invasion of privacy in connection with the publication of several articles concerning the circuit court as "the appellees." also, we will refer to bryan bly, crystal moore, 2. christopher forrest and the forrest law firm are depositions with the clerk, only the one-page notice. the appellants do not dispute this the appellees' counsel pointed out the current robo-signer scandal and obvious they just want to post this on the internet." (emphasis added.) finally, counsel barbara p. morlon, who are defendants in the underlying mortgage foreclosure action rick defuria, judge. the petitioners' motion to compel discovery of this information, and it granted the interest unrelated to the suppression of expression" and that "[b]ecause of the liberality were irregularities in the signatures on the assignment. appellants' free speech. significantly, the appellants used the discovery process and vi. conclusion materials from the video depositions," amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint of morlon; and deutsche bank ) contained in the video depositions if appellants obtain that information from other temporary injunction rather than a protective order, the circumstances are analogous to appeal pursuant to fla. r. app. p. 9.130 injunction has been granted may move to dissolve or modify it at any time. . . . [t]he the supreme court observed that "[t]he critical question that this case disseminating, or maintaining materials from the video depositions" of the individual limitation of first amendment freedoms [is] no greater than is necessary or essential to sources. accordingly, we conclude that the temporary injunction does not amount to an publication and dissemination of matters of great public importance." they argue that - 10 - mr. forrest and his law firm did not file a motion to dissolve or to modify the temporary appellees on the internet. opinion filed june 29, 2011. of ms. moore's signature on the instrument. nationwide title clearing, inc. (ntc), for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order under review to the extent of crystal moore, dhurata doko, and bryan bly on youtube.4 temporary injunction does not amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint of the the courts have shown more reluctance to limit the dissemination of 1 ulterior motives i have for taking them by videotape, i'm quite injunction because of the potential for permanent injury to christopher forrest and his law firm represent peter y. morlon and sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined." "an morgan, 45 so. 3d 63, 64 (fla. 2d dca), petition for review dismissed, 50 so. 3d 1137 affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. attempt to block when i attempt to take these depositions, granted herein does not require a bond" without explaining the basis upon which the injunction is defective if it does not require the movant to post a bond. 'the trial court materials from the video depositions of the ntc employees, id. public's access to information. however, in this case, until against turning the discovery process into a means to obtain information for publication public but were obtained as part of the pretrial discovery process. depositions and newsweek stations orlando, inc. v. guetzloe, 968 so. 2d 608, 609 (fla. 5th dca on appeal, the appellants make three arguments. first, they argue that crystal moore; dhurata doko; and vilma however, "[n]o bond shall be required for issuance of a temporary injunction issued peter y. morlon; barbara ) 27-28, and the supreme court accepted review. november 19. but when the appellees' counsel attempted to contact mr. forrest to interrogatories are not public information and that, generally, such discovery is national issue here." she expressed concern that "these type of depositions are going have appeared to be a typical pretrial skirmish in a routine residential foreclosure. but deposition to the press because of public interest in the case, but prohibiting the parties have a first amendment right to disseminate, in advance of trial, information gained and the performance of their governmental responsibilities"). in this case, the individual traditionally public source of information. id. adopted by the state legislature, that process was a matter of legislative grace. thus, to continue going on all over the state, as this is the new, in-vogue tactic to fight 378, 382-84 (fla. 1987) (discussing the seattle times case at length). and mr. west palm beach; and randall c. marshall ) (quoting bellach v. huggs of naples, inc., 704 so. 2d 679, 680 (fla. 2d dca 1997)). 4 2001) (holding that a former mayor defendant failed to establish good cause for a case "is about a trial court's authority to control pretrial discovery procedures and the presents is whether a litigant's freedom comprehends the right to disseminate discovery and the fact that the depositions could be relevant to the morlons' defense. in-vogue defense tactic, this case is not about the national the court concluded, "[a] litigant has no first amendment right of access to information iv. preliminary matters andrea flynn mogensen, p.a., sarasota; court reasoned, "[t]here is an opportunity . . . for litigants to obtain--incidentally or the defendants' videotaped deposition testimony to purposes directly related to nationwide title clearing, inc.; bryan bly; james k. green of james k. green, p.a., 3. christopher forrest is to show cause to this court claim. who delivered the only copy of the videotaped deposition of the president and chief the court found that "rule 26(c) furthers a substantial governmental interpreting florida's civil procedure rules." gleneagle ship mgmt. co. v. leondakos, alleged that it did not have the note and that it had filed a claim to reestablish a lost 2 2007). here, because the appellants did not seek to dissolve the ex parte injunction, be able to find them or locate them because they quit or - 17 - minnesota ex rel. olson, 283 u.s. 697 (1931), and similar cases condemning prior to consider whether the 'practice in question [furthers] an important or substantial 3 establish its standing to foreclose because standing was based upon its status as the and sign it automatically, like robots." investopedia, http://www.investopedia.com/ the rationale of seattle times applies here. although this case involves a remaining appellees are all nonparties to the underlying mortgage foreclosure action.2 assignment as the vice president of citi residential lending. vilma castro and dhurata however, the circuit court erred in entering the injunction without requiring that it grants the requested temporary injunctive relief. we reverse the order to the prevent physical injury or abuse as required by rule 1.160(b). see united farm not named as parties to this law suit. interests attach. id. at 30. "thus, the [r]ules often allow extensive intrusion into the adequate remedy at law. the emergency motion for temporary injunction does not national trust company. to prohibit dissemination of the defendant television commentator's videotaped we begin our consideration of the propriety of the entry of the temporary christopher forrest and ) a. prior restraint or prevention of abuse of the discovery process? a "robo-signer" is "[a]n employee of a mortgage servicing company that the circuit court heard the emergency motion on november 19, the same posted by other users and upload videos of their own." tech terms computer transform the depositions into court records that are open to the public. see fla. r. (fla. 2d dca 2002). (only westlaw citation currently available) (observing that "[c]ourts are especially the protection of the particular governmental interest involved.' " id. (alterations in v. marsonek, 805 so. 2d 868, 869 (fla. 2d dca 2001). coordinate the hearing, she was told that he was "out of the country" until monday, i. the factual and procedural background v. discussion appellees "until further order" of the circuit court and directing them to remove the video - 6 - unconstitutional prior restraint on the appellants' first amendment rights. the circuit extent that it fails to require a bond in accordance with florida rule of civil procedure miami, for appellants. high sch. activities ass'n v. mander, 932 so. 2d 314, 315-16 (fla. 2d dca 2006) calculated to leave the impression that he harbored no such intent. opportunity to be heard on this issue. see pinder v. pinder, 817 so. 2d 1104, 1105 relevant, and whether or not opposing counsel, you know, is 5 ) court acted properly within the broad scope of its discretion in entering the temporary determine the confidentiality of court records. appellees argued, in pertinent part, that the mortgage assignment and the depositions videotaping the depositions, mr. forrest represented: llp, tampa, for appellee deutsche bank original) (quoting procunier v. martinez, 416 u.s. 396, 413 (1974)). those concerns to affect my ability to do my job on behalf of mortgage from ameriquest to deutsche bank explain the involvement of the appellees the inherent power to protect nonparty witnesses. but the appellees have not cited any the appellants, christopher forrest and the forrest law group, video depositions, and it does not purport to restrict the dissemination of the information instead, they filed this appeal. the temporary injunction constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on their right to granting temporary injunctions is for abuse of discretion. atomic tattoos, llc v. ii. the temporary injunction appellees, neither the morlons nor deutsche bank have filed a brief in this court. the forrest's filing of a notice of filing depositions without actually filing them does not the court found it significant that in the case before it, the petitioners had and all persons acting in concert with either, are enjoined with the federal rules.' thus, we look to the federal rules and decisions for guidance in videotaped depositions for good cause shown. see stern v. cosby, 529 f. supp. 2d nonparty appellees. she noted that mr. bly's name had already been spread "all over from the circuit court for sarasota county; court concluded that no bond was required. the order adopts the arguments in the mr. rhinehart and his religious group, the aquarian foundation. id. at 22-23. current affair), affirmed, 806 n.y.s.2d 888 (n.y. app. div. 2006), petition for review mr. bly, and ms. doko from the forrest law firm "youtube" the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any - 16 - the situation in seattle times. the reasoning in that case supports the conclusion that and the forrest law firm, including: injunction to protect the individual appellees and to prevent the abuse of the discovery thus the four individual appellees submitted to the taking of their depositions by mr. - 15 - than the discovery process. ultimately, the supreme court of washington approved 27. "the order prohibited petitioners from publishing, disseminating, or using the other party . . . . it is not ground for objection that the absent further order of the court); baker v. buffenbarger, no. 03-c-5443, 2004 wl for convenience, we will refer to the appellees who were nonparties in information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to made available only for purposes of trying his suit." id. moreover, the video depositions and the testimony contained in them, like katherine e. giddings, nancy m. wallace, individual appellees' privacy and subjected them to unnecessary abuse and the appellees frame the issue before us differently. they argue that this wallace, judge. appellees' motion in determining that they had a clear legal right to the requested relief city of tenaha, no. 2-08-cv-288-tjw, 2010 wl 3927969, at *4 (e.d. tex. oct. 5, 2010) in the press or other media. see palm beach newspapers, inc. v. burk, 504 so. 2d excuse the requirement of posting a bond. - 19 - comments do not constitute the "abuse" contemplated by rule 1.610(b) sufficient to to obstruct my ability to take them. depositions of the individual appellees on the internet. but his denial of "some ulterior restraints on speech as inconsistent with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the first (fla. 2010). we apply a de novo standard of review to the determination of whether a executive officer of the defendant to persons associated with the television program, a depositions as confidential under florida rule of judicial administration obstructing my ability to move forward. and to respond briefly to the allegations about some the court finds that the public interest favors the temporary in preventing this sort of abuse of its processes." id. at 35. the court held "that where promulgating the florida [rules of civil procedure] has been to harmonize our rules the court orders a temporary and mandatory appellees' counsel with limited options to address timely the posting of the video injunction solely to prevent the physical injury or abuse of the individual appellees. we where, as here, the defendants are public officials and the issues in the case are motion and, if filed, determined bryan bly; crystal moore; ) for appellees citi residential lending, inc.; florida rule of civil procedure 1.280(b)(1) similarly provides as follows: appellants' free speech. our conclusion on this point is guided by the teaching of the process. conducted in private. id. at 33. further, much of the information obtained during pretrial - 2 - authority for that proposition. accordingly, we reject this argument. from posting, publishing, disseminating, or maintaining morlon and barbara morlon. until further order by this court; in the district court of appeal information that he has obtained pursuant to a court order that both granted him access - 3 - required "solely to prevent physical injury," waiver of the bond requirement was error). motion for the injunction, and any supporting documents. see high sch. activities ass'n speech. instead, we uphold the injunction as an appropriate exercise of the trial court's the hearing on the motion for protective order filed by the appellees might the video depositions of the individual appellees and that while there might be legitimate 2124787, at *4 (n.d. ill. sept. 22, 2004) (not reported in f. supp. 2d) (limiting the use of information discovered before trial is not the type of "classic prior restraint that requires scene, it's not about the robo signers scandal that's hit the deposition transcripts and, if necessary, to make any changes. see fla. r. civ. p. hearing on the motion for protective order leaves little doubt that the circuit court november 22. because of the thanksgiving holiday, the circuit court was unavailable that i'm going to run into some serious obstacles in taking the subpoena power of the court to obtain the video depositions at issue here. and the injunction in this lawsuit of the actions of christopher forrest appellees' counsel. according to the appellees, the appellants did not actually file the amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages challenge a nonfinal, temporary injunction, enjoining them "from posting, publishing, holder of the note. in addition, counsel observed that the morlons did not challenge the 29-30 (quoting wash. super. ct. civ. r. 26(b)(1)).6 not prevent a party from disseminating the identical information covered by the depositions and prohibits them from "posting, publishing, disseminating, or maintaining 27. the order did not apply to information that the petitioners gained by means other "when the facts to be elucidated during that deposition have direct bearing on the 7 damaging to reputation and privacy. the government clearly has a substantial interest the appellees also argue that no bond was required because the crystal moore, bryan bly, dhurata doko, and vilma castro. the certificate of service the circuit court asked mr. forrest to respond to the appellees' employs all four of the individual appellees. appellants, ) reflects service of a copy of the notice on counsel for deutsche bank, but not on the at the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court denied the appellees' protective order to prevent the depositions from taking place. mr. forrest and the nothing to do with this case and they shouldn't be subject to harassment . . . on a gave the conscientious and experienced circuit judge an incomplete account of mr. motion to determine confidentiality of court records. the motion to determine same substantial interest in preventing the abuse of the circuit court's processes that the discovery of admissible evidence. and maria kayanan of american civil of florida defendant's deposition, including excerpts, portions, or copies thereof, to the public harassment. we acknowledge that the appellees sought to block the depositions acted before the individual appellees even had an opportunity to read and sign the confidentiality asserted that the posting of the depositions on youtube invaded the of the ntc employees were irrelevant to the disposition of the underlying matter. she affairs of both litigants and third parties," and "[i]f a litigant fails to comply with a request - 4 - to immediately remove the video depositions of ms. moore, dhurata doko; vilma castro; ) broad and that the circuit court improperly entered it without notice. third, they contend limited to matters that will be admissible at trial so long as the information sought restraints placed upon discovered, but not yet admitted, information do not restrict a are more stringent than the showing of "good cause" required for the entry of a 6 not post the video deposition of vilma castro on youtube. arguments that can be presented at summary judgment hearing and/or trial on this ) (emphasis added). have the authority to issue protective orders conferred by rule 26(c)." id. at 34. the 602 so. 2d 1282, 1283-84 (fla. 1992) (citations omitted) (quoting miami transit co. v. - 14 - in the litigation. citi residential lending, inc., executed the assignment in question as for hearings during the week that mr. forrest was scheduled to return, and the court's parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, reason i want them videoed. oh, no, i take that back. that's acquired the note and mortgage by assignment from ameriquest. motion for protective order. significantly, the court noted the liberality of the rules of irrelevant to the issues in litigation, defamatory, or prejudicial. this fact argues strongly is limited to the context of pretrial civil discovery, and does not restrict the dissemination note and mortgage was ameriquest mortgage company. deutsche bank apparently motion." the court fully supports first amendment rights and the matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending khouzam and morris, jj., concur. - 5 - to the bond requirement applies in this case, stating that the circuit court issued the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of amendment. id. at 37. in the foreclosure crisis 1.610(b). on remand, the circuit court shall promptly set the bond in an appropriate protective order. in addition, the order only addresses the nonparty witnesses' pretrial thus mr. forrest did not expressly say that he did not intend to post the video on november 9, mr. forrest filed with the clerk a "notice of filing video the florida supreme court has also observed that " 'the objective in (holding that where the temporary injunction prohibited actions broader than those injunction on november 19. the internet" and that while "these employees have nothing to hide, . . . they have united states supreme court in seattle times co. v. rhinehart, 467 u.s. 20 (1984). distinguish between private or intimate information and information to which no privacy case." he contended that the assignment was relevant because deutsche bank castro. individual appellees have demonstrated that the posting of those depositions on the evidence to be used later in this case. that's the only these depositions, whether they're objections and attempts on november 11, the appellees served a motion for sanctions and a there's a lot of attention being focused on them; a lot appellants] try to provide a legitimate reason for this request. and we believe it's - 7 - they're obviously quite concerned that this--that my circuit court granted the emergency motion. the order granting the temporary injunction matters of public concern"); padberg v. mcgrath-mckechnie, no. cv-00-3355 rjd terms/r/robo-signer.asp (last visited apr. 28, 2011). ) - 18 - - 12 - (prohibiting dissemination of deposition and discovery materials to the press or any free speech. second, the appellants assert that the temporary injunction is overly protective order as long as it is gained through independent means. other persons except attorneys of record and imposing monetary sanctions on attorneys dissemination of the video deposition of prince, the well-known rock artist); seaman v. those individuals who were called as witnesses, but who are media, this case is about the morlons. i'm here to defend motives" and his recitation of the reasons for taking the video depositions were the appellees to post a bond. florida rule of civil procedure 1.610(b) provides that - 9 - harassment. the appellees sought to classify the individual appellees' video entirely rather than seeking a protective order against the posting of the depositions on assert that the appellees are entitled to the injunction without posting a bond. temporary injunction constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. post- smg, 2005 wl 5190385, at *2-*3 (e.d.n.y. apr. 27, 2005) (not reported in f. supp. 2d) on appeal, the appellees argue that the physical injury or abuse exception . . . a protective order is entered on a showing of good cause as required by rule 26(c), on november 17, the circuit court contacted the appellees' counsel by e- the forrest law group, ) no appearance for appellees peter y. ) with a variety of unflattering remarks and vague threats. however, such negative 417, 423 (s.d.n.y. 2007) (prohibiting the release of the video or transcript of the channel, until further order by this court; and agree with the appellants that the trial court erred in failing to require a bond. the issue can be more fully explored in an expedited hearing, solely to prevent physical injury or abuse of a natural person." fla. r. civ. p. 1.610(b) the supreme court noted that washington, like most states, had adopted matter was set for a hearing before the circuit court.

All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise