22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1144b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2210CENTInsurance — Discovery — Trade secrets — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering medical provider to disclose reimbursement rates without conducting in camera inspection and determining whether discovery request will result in disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information and, if so, whether insurer demonstrated reasonable necessity for information and whether safeguards are required to prevent unnecessary dissemination of trade secrets or confidential information
PELAYO MEDICAL CENTER, INC., (a/a/o Jose Guevara Dominguez), Petitioner, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-192 AP. L.T. Case No. 12-3645 SP 23. May 20, 2015. An appeal from the County Court in and for Miami Dade County, Judge Jason E. Dimitris. Counsel: Joseph Littman, for Petitioner. Iftikhar Memon, for Respondent.
(Before TRAWICK, SIGLER and BUTCHKO, JJ.)
(TRAWICK, Judge.) Petitioner, Pelayo Medical Center, Inc., (“medical provider”) seeks certiorari relief from a non-final order overruling its objections to Respondent, United Automobile Company’s (“insurer”) interrogatories and requests for production. At issue are the medical provider’s objections to interrogatories and requests for production on the basis that disclosure would violate the medical provider’s trade secret privilege and would require disclosure of confidential business information.
This appellate court has certiorari jurisdiction under Rule 9.030(c)(2), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The legal standard for review of the trial court’s order is a departure from the essential requirements of law. Sheridan Healthcorp Inc., v. Total Health Choice, Inc., 770 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2503b]. A petitioner may obtain common law certiorari relief if this departure results in “material injury through subsequent proceedings,” and no adequate remedy can alleviate the “irreparable injury” caused by the non-final order. Id.
The subject of this appeal is the trial court’s order of April 30, 2014, which overruled Petitioner’s discovery objections and required disclosure of the medical provider’s reimbursement rates without divulging the identity of the payor. As the party invoking the privilege, the Petitioner bore the burden of showing good cause demonstrating the need for protection or limitation of discovery. American Express Travel Related Serv., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D1542a]. In addition to the assertion of the trade secret privilege, the Petitioner presented argument that its contracts with HMO and PPO insurers contained confidentiality provisions which prohibited Petitioner from disclosing the terms of its business contracts, including the rates, to others. At this juncture, it was incumbent upon the trial court to weigh the importance of protecting confidential and trade secret materials against the interest in facilitating trial and promoting the furtherance of justice. §90.506, Fla. Stat. (2015); Gulfcoast Surgery Center, Inc., v. Fisher, 107 So. 3d 493, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D341a]. This usually requires the court to conduct an in camera review or balancing test. Id. While the Petitioner further contends it had requested that the trial court conduct an in camera inspection of the HMO and PPO contracts, the lower court chose not to do so.
It is well established that a court must determine whether disputed discovery information is a trade secret when the trade secret privilege is asserted. Summitbridge Nat’l. Investments, LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, LLC, 67 So. 3d 448, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1888b]. Under Section 688.002(4) of the Florida Statute, a trade secret is defined as:
“. . .information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that:
(a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure and use; and (b) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
The determination of the trade secret privilege warrants an in camera inspection and a subsequent evidentiary hearing of the issue of reasonable necessity for disclosure. Premiere Lab Supply, Inc. v. Chemplex Industries, Inc., 791 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D1928b]. If a trial court orders production of a trade secret, it must first demonstrate the necessity of the production and set forth its findings supporting this necessity. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., v. Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731, 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D1012a]. The trial court could not require a medical provider to disclose billing and collection documents that contain trade secrets and confidential information without making findings to support its implicit conclusion that the requested documents demonstrated a reasonable necessity that outweighed the interest asserted in the confidentiality of the trade secrets. Laser Spine Institute, LLC. v. Greer, 144 So.3d 633, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1671a]; Columbia Hospital Limited Partnership v. Hasson, 33 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D551a].
The lower court’s order makes no determination as to whether the insurer’s discovery request will result in the disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information. If the court concluded that the disputed discovery did not constitute trade secrets or confidential information, it appears from the order that such determination was made without a review of the materials or an in camera inspection.
Accordingly, we find that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law that will result in material injury that is irreparable. We hereby grant the petition for certiorari relief and quash the lower court’s discovery order. This case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct an in camera review, to determine if the disputed discovery constitutes trade secrets or confidential information, and if so, whether the insurer demonstrated a reasonable necessity for the information and whether safeguards are required to prevent unnecessary dissemination of the trade secret or confidential information. (SIGLER and BUTCHKO, JJ., CONCUR.)
* * *
