media outlet in exchange for your statements (whether "on the record" or "off the record") regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Alan M. Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and/or being a sex slave.” Whether Jane Doe No. 3 has interacted with the media has nothing to do with the Florida Defamation Action. As explained above, a non-party’s personal financial information and other confidential information is subject to protection by this Court. See Woodward v. Berkery, 714 So. 2d 1027, 1034-38 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Accordingly, the requests relating to financial information from this non-party should be quashed’. d. Category 4 — Plainly Privileged Communications Defendant’s subpoena requests seek documents that are plainly privileged. Florida courts are unequivocal in stating that an opposing party can never obtain attorney-client privileged materials. See Quarles & Brady LLP v. Birdsall, 802 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (quashing discovery order and noting “undue hardship is not an exception (to disclosure of privileged material), nor is disclosure permitted because the opposing party claims that the privileged information is necessary to prove their case.”) (internal citations omitted). Non-party, Jane Doe No. 3, objects to all of Defendant’s subpoena requests to the extent that they seek documents protected by the attorney client privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense and common interest privileges and any other relevant privilege. Indeed, Jane Doe No. 3 should be protected from responding to Request no. 25 in its entirety because on its face it seeks solely privileged and confidential information relating to her retention of BSF.* See Westco Inc. v. Scott Lewis’ Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4™ DCA 2010) (court explaining that “[w]hen confidential information is sought from a non-party, the trial court must determine whether the requesting party establishes a need for the information that outweighs the privacy * Specifically, Requ