for the financial records of both defendants. 4 .The petitioners do not challenge the portion of the circuit court's order that requires Mrs. Rappaport to provide prejudgment discovery concerning the financial affairs of CCH and Mr. Rappaport. Accordingly, we express no opinion concerning the Bank’s right to obtain prejudgment discovery concerning the defendants' financial affairs. 5 . We have considered the Bank's argument that the entry of the second order that amended the order denying the motion for protective order in two minor particulars renders the entire petition moot. This argument is without merit, and we reject it without further comment. 6 . We note that the Bank did not make this argument in the circuit court. Cf. Malu v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 898 So.2d 69, 73 (Fla. 2005)
holding that the tipsy coachman doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons so long as there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record  holding that a trial court order reaching the right result with erroneous or incomplete reasoning can be affirmed under the tipsy coachman doctrine so long as the alternative ruling is supported by the record before the trial court holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds holding that we may affirm on an alternative basis supported by the record holding that the tipsy coachman rule permits an appellate court to affirm a trial court order on the basis of an alternative theory which was not asserted in the court below