DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT GCTC HOLDINGS, LLC, Petitioner, v. TAG QSR, LLC; GULF COAST PITA, LLC d/b/a PITA PIT; RALPH C. ANZIVINO; and MARY JO ANZIVINO, Respondents. No. 2D21-3457 September 9, 2022 Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Lee County; James Shenko, Judge. Julia Kapusta and Courtney L. Fernald of Englander Fischer, St. Petersburg, for Petitioner. Kelli A. Edson, Julia M. Wischmeier, and Gabriela N. Timis of Quarles & Brady, LLP, Tampa, for Respondents. MORRIS, Chief Judge. GCTC Holdings, LLC, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's order granting Tag QSR, LLC; Gulf Coast Pita LLC d/b/a Pita Pit; and Ralph C. and Mary Jo Anzivino's (the Respondents) motion for reconsideration of an order sustaining GCTC's objection to a request for production. We conclude that in granting the motion, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law resulting in material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal. Therefore we grant the petition. BACKGROUND GCTC is the owner of a commercial shopping center. The Respondents Tag QSR, LLC, and Gulf Coast Pita LLC d/b/a Pita Pit LLC had a commercial lease with GCTC, and the Anzivinos were the guarantors of the lease. The underlying dispute involved GCTC's complaint for eviction and monetary damages, including claims against the Anzivinos, after the Respondents defaulted on their lease. The Respondents raised several affirmative defenses including that GCTC was required to ensure that the shopping center remained fully leased. The Respondents also filed a counterclaim seeking damages for constructive eviction and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. During discovery, the Respondents sought, among other things, GCTC's monthly rent 2 rolls as they related to the other tenants of the shopping center. Specifically, request for production #15 sought [m]onthly rent rolls of Gulf Coast Town Center from the inception of GCTC's ownership to February 1, 2020, identifying the specific leased units by tenant name, location, square footage, and amounts billed and monies collected for each unit by month, and identifying the vacant units, including square footage of each vacant unit. GCTC objected to this request, arguing that it was overbroad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and further arguing that "it calls for privileged and confidential trade secret information." The Respondents then filed a motion to compel, which was denied after a hearing on the basis of overbreadth. The trial court made no finding related to GCTC's assertion of trade secret privilege. Thereafter, the Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration as to request #15, arguing that the information they sought was readily available to GCTC because it was contained in all of the various leases between GCTC and the other tenants. Aside from the request for the leases, the Respondents asked for "any records showing when tenants vacated leased premises during the few years' time span." The Respondents maintained that the 3 information was critical to their defense and counterclaim and that without it they …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals