Maidel De Armas v. Emilio De Armas

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 31, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1993
Lower Tribunal No. 24-6193-CA-01
________________
Maidel De Armas,
Petitioner,
vs.
Emilio De Armas,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit
(Miramar), for petitioner.
Mamone Villalon, and Ramsey Villalon, for respondent.
Before LINDSEY, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.

2
After producing limited cropped screenshots of WhatsApp and text
messages lacking timestamps or any sender or recipient information, the trial
court ordered the Petitioner Maidel de Armas to submit her mobile device for
forensic imaging. 	This was done to obtain accurate message data and
metadata concerning communications, which are relevant to the lawsuit.
She now petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking to quash that
order.
To obtain a writ of certiorari, a party must demonstrate a departure
from the essential requirements of the law that results in material injury that
cannot be corrected on plenary appeal. Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla.,
Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004). But Petitioner has failed to prove that
the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Talley v.
Consol. 	Respondents, 	350 	So. 	3d 	415, 	420 	(Fla. 	1st 	DCA 	2022)
(“Accordingly, the trial court could not have departed from the essential
requirements of law, especially when Petitioners concede that the text
messages contain relevant information and the trial court has gone to great
lengths to ensure that any specific privacy or privilege concerns may still be
addressed in the future.”); Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc., 148 So. 3d 163, 166
(Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“The record here indicates that the trial court closely
considered 	how 	to 	balance 	Respondents’ 	discovery 	rights 	and 	the

3
decedent’s 	privacy 	rights. 	The 	order 	highlighted 	the 	relevance 	of 	the
cellphone’s 	data 	to 	the 	Respondents’ 	defense 	and 	it 	set 	forth 	strict
procedures controlling how the inspection process would proceed.”). 	As a
result, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
Petition denied.