Background
Marlon Berrouet sued NM Auction General Partnership and Gabrita 125th Inc. over injuries he allegedly sustained in a 2018 slip-and-fall at a Miami commercial building. His wife, Rose Carline Romain, asserted a loss-of-consortium claim.
The circuit court set trial for December 15, 2025, and required expert disclosures by October 16. Berrouet and Romain disclosed experts 11 days late. Finding prejudice from the late disclosure, the trial court struck the experts, although it later continued the trial to August 2, 2026 on a separate motion. The non-treating experts remained excluded.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District dismissed the certiorari petition because the petitioners did not establish irreparable harm, a jurisdictional requirement for certiorari review. The court did not decide whether striking the experts was legally correct.
Exclusion of the non-treating experts could be reviewed and remedied, if erroneous, in a plenary appeal after final judgment. The petitioners had not shown they would be unable to make a proffer of the excluded evidence for appellate review.
Key Takeaways
- Certiorari requires a showing of irreparable harm that cannot be corrected on appeal.
- An order excluding expert testimony ordinarily does not create irreparable harm when the evidence can be proffered and reviewed after final judgment.
- The appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without resolving whether the trial court properly found prejudice from the late disclosure.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow availability of certiorari review for interlocutory evidentiary rulings. Even where an expert exclusion appears questionable in light of a later trial continuance, the party seeking immediate review must show why an eventual appeal cannot provide an adequate remedy.