Google conversion of PDF file

For background: Scientology granted discovery orders quashed

Page 1

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
DELL LIEBREICH, individually, and
)
THE ESTATE OF LISA McPHERSON, )
by and through the Personal
)
Representative, Dell Liebreich,
))
Petitioners,
))
v.
)
Case No. 2D01-2518
)
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG
)
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.,
))
Respondent.
)
)
Opinion filed May 10, 2002.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
Circuit Court for Pinellas County;
W. Douglas Baird, Judge.
Thomas John Dandar and Kennan G.
Dandar of Dandar & Dandar, P.A.,
Tampa, for Petitioners.
F. Wallace Pope, Jr., of Johnson,
Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns,
P.A., Clearwater, and Samuel D. Rosen
of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky, Walker,
LLP, New York, New York, for
Respondent.
Page 2
-2-
PARKER, Judge.
The estate of Lisa McPherson, by and through the personal
representative, Dell Liebreich (the estate), and Dell Liebreich, individually, petition this
court for a writ of certiorari to quash a discovery order that compels Liebreich to answer
interrogatories propounded by the respondent, the Church of Scientology Flag Service
Organization, Inc. (the church). We grant the writ and quash the discovery order for the
reasons expressed in Estate of McPherson ex rel. Liebreich v. Church of Scientology
Flag Service Organization, Inc., 27 Fla. L. Weekly D767 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 3, 2002).
In the present action, the church sued the estate for breach of contract
and sued the personal representative, individually, for tortious interference with a
contractual relationship. The claims arose from a litigation agreement the estate and
the church entered into in the estate's wrongful death action against the church. The
church argues in its petition here that our opinion in the McPherson wrongful death
action quashing a discovery order is inapplicable. We conclude otherwise.
Here, the church is again seeking information on who is providing funds,
and in what amounts, to the estate's counsel or to any other counsel to defend the
estate or personal representative, individually. We determine that this discovery of
financial sources is irrelevant and is not "admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence" in this breach of contract and tortious interference action. See
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995). For the reasons expressed
in McPherson, we grant the estate's petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial
court's order of June 5, 2001, compelling discovery.
Page 3
-3-
Petition granted, and order quashed.
SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.