-3-
whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the order creates
irreparable harm." Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2001). We recognize that the disclosure of irrelevant information does not
necessarily create irreparable harm. See Langston, 655 So. 2d at 94; Morgan, Colling
& Gilbert, 798 So. 2d at 2. Under the circumstances here, however, we agree with the
estate that if the challenged discovery is allowed, it will create irreparable harm that
cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. Here, the defendant in a wrongful death case
is seeking information from the plaintiff and its counsel regarding the source of
significant contributions to fund the litigation. As the estate contends, this will create a
chilling effect on receiving future funding. Furthermore, the estate points out that if it is
forced to disclose how much money it has to spend on litigation prior to the conclusion
of the case, the church will know how long the estate "can last before it has to throw in
the towel due to lack of funds." The fact that this is the church's forty-seventh request
for production bolsters the conclusion that the church will litigate until the estate can no
longer afford to continue. With this in mind, we hold that the production of the
requested documents will cause the estate to suffer irreparable harm.
Second, this court must consider whether the trial court departed from the
essential requirements of law. See City of Oldsmar v. Kimmins Contracting Corp., 805
So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The trial court's discovery order requires the estate
and its counsel to produce documents to the church that reveal the source of funding
for this litigation. "Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the
case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence."
Langston, 655 So. 2d at 94; see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1). We have thoroughly