In Neiman v. Naseer, et al (4D10-2091), the Fourth District denied a petition for certiorari seeking to quash the trial court's order that had refused to grant protection from a subpoena, served on the appellant's attorneys, that "sought information about settlement funds paid to one of the judgment debtors in an unrelated lawsuit." Review was sought of the trial court's non-final order. The Fourth District first noted that the order was not reviewable "as a non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4)." The court concluded:
Treating the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, we agree with the circuit court that the information sought was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information was known to the other party to the settlement agreement in the unrelated lawsuit. We also agree that “[w]hile confidentiality agreements are necessary in some instances, to facilitate settlement, they may not be subsequently employed by a litigant to . . . thwart an opponent’s discovery.” Smith v. TIB Bank of the Keys, 687 So. 2d 895, 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We reject the judgment debtors’ other arguments without further comment.