22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 892a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2208ORTHInsurance — Discovery — Trade secret privilege — Trial court erred in compelling disclosure of contract with medical provider’s supplier without determining whether contract constituted trade secret and, if so, whether there was reasonable necessity for production
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ORTHO FLORIDA, LLL, Respondent. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Division. Case No. 502014CA005260XXXXMB, Division AY. L.T. Case No. 502013SC011701XXXXMB. March 10, 2015. Appeal from the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Judge Reginald Corlew. Counsel: Nancy W. Gregoire, Fort Lauderdale; and Brian D. Pita, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Petitioner. C. Glen Ged, Ellis, Ged & Bodden, P.A., Boca Raton, for Respondent.
(PER CURIAM.) Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company seeks to quash a trial court order compelling Petitioner to produce contract with one of its suppliers, Mitchell Medical International, Inc. (“Mitchell Contract”). According to Petitioner, the Mitchell Contract is proprietary and confidential, and production would cause irreparable harm. Petitioner argues that the trial court departed from the essential elements of the law in ordering production of Mitchell Contract. We agree and remand for further proceedings.
Trade secrets are privileged under Section 90.506, Florida Statutes (2013). This privilege, however, is not absolute, and trade secrets can be obtained via discovery under certain circumstances. To determine if such circumstances exist, a trial court generally must (1) determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret, (2) if it is a trade secret, determine whether there is a reasonable necessity for production; and (3) if production is ordered, the trial court must set forth its findings. Sea Coast Fire, Inc. v. Triangle Fire, Inc., No. 3D14-973, 2014 WL 6679018, at *2-3 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 26, 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D2480a] (citing Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So. 2d 507, 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D1400b]). Generally, to determine whether the requested information constitutes a trade secret, the trial court must perform an in camera inspection or other document examination. Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, LLC, 67 So. 3d 448, 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1888b]. The trial court may also hold an evidentiary hearing, which may include expert testimony. Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy, 129 So. 3d 501, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D150d]; Revello Med. Mgmt., Inc. v. Med-Data Infotech USA, Inc., 50 So. 3d 678, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2699a]. Failure to follow these steps generally constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Sea Coast Fire, 2014 WL 6679018 at *2-3.
Here, it is unclear whether the trial court made any of the required determinations because it made no relevant findings. Additionally, the trial court failed to undertake an in camera review of the materials, which is generally required. Accordingly, the trial court, in ordering production of the Mitchell Contract, departed from the essential requirements of the law by failing to conduct the necessary inquiry and determine whether the information requested constituted a trade secret meriting limitations on discovery. As such, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED, the order compelling production is QUASHED, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing. (J. KEYSER, COX, and BURTON, JJ., concur.)
* * *
