Suarez v. Hillcrest Development of South Florida, Inc.

William and Maricarmen Suarez (plaintiffs) filed an action for damages against Hillcrest Development of South Florida, Inc. (Hillcrest) (defendant) in Miami-Dade County. Hillcrest was represented by Hollander and Bartelstone, P.A. (Hollander). A final damages award was entered against Hillcrest approximately six years after the action was originally filed. The final judgment was not appealed. By the time the final judgment was entered, Hillcrest had been administratively dissolved and Hillcrest’s Florida office had been closed. Hillcrest’s directors and registered-agent all resided in Argentina at an address unknown to the Suarezes. The Suarezes served Hollander with a request for production of documents necessary to execute the final judgment (the document request). After Hollander failed to respond to the document request, the Suarezes moved to compel. Hollander challenged, arguing that it was not required to respond because its representation of Hillcrest had terminated upon entry of the final judgment. The Suarezes then moved to compel Hollander to provide the Suarezes with Hillcrest’s contact information. It was undisputed that Hollander possessed the requested contact information. The trial court denied both motions. The Suarezes filed a petition for a writ-of-certiorari with the appellate court, arguing that Hollander should be forced to respond to both the Suarezes’ discovery request and their demand for Hillcrest’s contact information.