proceeding, however, is a non-final order and a party seeking relief from such an order would have to petition for a writ of certiorari.” Id. at 1254 (emphasis added). This was a reference to a discovery order entered against a party to an ongoing proceeding. See, e.g., City of Williston v. Roadlander, 425 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); but see Corry v. Meggs, 498 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Only then would it be proper to ask if the party seeking review by certiorari would have an adequate remedy by appealing the final judgment. In the present case, there is no ongoing proceeding between the parties to the lawsuit and the individuals who have been ordered to provide discovery. As to these individuals, the order is final. See Smith v. State, 902 So.2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). Based on the holding in Calderbank and our
holding that trial court erred by imposing sanctions against attorney without notice and hearing but error was cured by attorneys subsequent challenge to sanctions holding that an order imposing sanctions against an attorney for one of the parties in a pending case is final and therefore immediately appealable by the attorney holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order holding an order of rule 37a sanctions against an attorney is immediately appealable under  1291