to third parties. Therefore, the documents do not meet the definition of “confidential” communications and are not subject to the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in ordering their production. As to the item covered by item (5) of the trial court’s order, there is no violation of the attorney-client privilege because no production is required. The order does not require the disclosure of privileged communications. Rather, the order requires only that the law firm’s file be available to Jenney’s former attorney at the continuation of his deposition. Because the order does not require disclosure of privileged communications, the trial court did not depart from the essentia .2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). Rather, we address only the issue of whether
holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for review holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review holding that this court may address an issue not ruled on by the trial court if it presents a question of law and all the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented holding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review holding that an appellate court cannot address on appeal an issue never ruled upon by the trial court