IN RE: THE MATTER OF CHEETAH LOUNGE, INC., DBA “THE CHEETAH LOUNGE” ET AL. v . SARASOTA COUNTY - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on May 31, 2012

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Luke Lirot, Clearwater, Florida, and Matthew A. Grossman, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Cheetah Lounge, Inc., dba “The Cheetah Lounge,” and Sarasota Eateries, LLC.

Attorneys 2:

Stephen S. Duggins and Scott D. Bergthold, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellees, Sarasota County, Florida, and Scott D. Bergthold.

Judge(s): SUSANO

After a subpoena duces tecum was served on Chattanooga attorney Scott D. Bergthold (“the Attorney”) requiring him to appear for a deposition in Hamilton County and to produce documents regarding ordinances enacted by Sarasota County, Florida (“the County”) pertaining to “adult businesses,” he filed this action as a motion for a protective order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-9- 201, et seq. (Supp. 2011). The Attorney asserted, on behalf of himself and the County, that the information sought was protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine and that the discovery was overly broad and unduly burdensome. The trial court granted the protective order and quashed the subpoena. The subpoena had been issued and served at the request of Cheetah Lounge, Inc., dba “The Cheetah Lounge” and Sarasota Eateries, LLC (“the Adult Clubs”) as a part of their discovery in a Florida case wherein they challenged the constitutionality of the subject ordinances. The Adult Clubs appeal. While this matter was pending oral argument before us, the County filed motions asking that this Court consider dual facts, i.e., (1) that, following the entry of the trial court’s judgment, the Florida court dismissed the underlying case and (2) that court later denied the Adult Clubs’ motion to rehear. We directed the parties to brief the issue of whether this ancillary matter is rendered moot by the dismissal of the underlying action. We now hold that this case is moot. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.