22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 742a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2206ZALDInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Documents — Trade secrets — Although contracts between medical provider and HMO/PPO carriers are trade secrets, reimbursements amounts contained in contracts are not — Provider is directed to reveal reimbursements amounts without identifying actual HMO/PPO carriers involved
VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., a/a/o Dailer Zaldivar, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 11-26113 SP 23 (03). December 18, 2014. Linda Singer Stein, Judge.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TOCOMPEL AND “IN CAMERA” INSPECTION
After review of over fifty (50) contracts and amendments in camera constituting of hundreds of pages tendered by the Plaintiff, Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., the Court having considered the documents, the Court file, and relevant legal authorities, the Court finds as follows:
1. The Plaintiff, as possessor of the potential trade secrets, has standing to claim the privilege.
2. The contracts themselves are trade secrets. Conceivably, another insurance company could gain an unfair economic/competitive advantage or create commercial gain by writing their own contracts in a less restrictive manner, and obtain business by taking language from the entire contracts which were provided in this case. There is a clear and potential impact of disclosure upon the holder’s business. As such, good cause has been shown that the disclosures of the full contracts may be harmful.
3. Additionally, as to the contracts themselves, the Defendant has not shown a reasonable necessity (or an exigent circumstance) for the requested information. Almost all of the information contained in the contracts (with the exception of numerical amounts of reimbursements) does not appear to be relevant to any issue in this case, nor likely to lead to the discovery of any admissible evidence.
4. Notwithstanding, the Court finds that the reimbursement amounts themselves are not trade secrets and Plaintiff agrees that the contracts at issue herein are the same ones. The Court has determined that although parts of the contracts constitute trade secret, the reimbursement amounts themselves are not trade secrets. This is because it would not disclose the methodology, factors or data considered by the HMO and PPO insurers in calculating their reimbursement amounts. See Summitbridge National Investments v. 1221 Palm Harbor, LLC, 67 So.3d 448 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1888b]. In addition, such amounts may be disclosed in a way that it does not identify the actual insurance companies/carriers involved.
5. It would seem to further advance the interests of justice if it is required that only the reimbursement amounts be revealed. Such amounts may be revealed/disclosed in a way that does not identify the actual insurance companies/carriers involved.
6. The Plaintiff shall identify this information by the type of carrier (i.e. HMO #1, HMO #2, PPO #1, PPO #2, etc.) with the reimbursement amount for the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes at issue in this case, and for the appropriate year of treatment.
7. The Plaintiff shall have sixty (60) days to comply with this Order.
* * *
