22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1000b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2209FERNInsurance — Discovery — Privilege — Trade secrets — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in compelling medical provider to disclose information regarding HMO and PPO agreements without satisfying legal criteria for trade secret analysis
VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., a/a/o Ileana Fernandez, Petitioner-Plaintiff, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent-Defendant. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-205 AP. L.T. Case No. 12-22783 SP 23. April 1, 2015. On common-law certiorari review from a non-final order rendered by the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Hon. Myriam Lehr. Counsel: Joseph Littman, Greenspan Law Firm, P.A. for the Petitioner. Michael Neimand, Office of the General Counsel, United Automobile Insurance Company, for Respondent.
(Before VENZER, TINKLER MENDEZ, and FERNANDEZ, B.)
(PER CURIAM.) During discovery, Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. (“Provider”) objected to United Automobile Insurance Company’s (“Insurer”) fourth (4th) interrogatory since it considered the HMO and PPO Agreements confidential trade secrets. In this proceeding, the Provider asserts that the county court erroneously compelled it to disclose the trade secret information and failed to conduct an in camera inspection before directing disclosure to the Insurer. We agree that the county court did not “satisfy the legal criteria for trade secret analysis”, thus violating the law’s essential requirements. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., a/a/o Alvarez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 184b (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Sept. 11, 2014). We quash the interlocutory order only as to the trial court overruling the Provider’s objections to the fourth (4th) interrogatory.
Because we vacate the interlocutory order in part, we grant the Provider’s motion for section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, appellate attorney’s fees.
QUASHED IN PART; APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S FEES GRANTED.
* * *
