22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 429a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2204MVALInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Medical provider — Trade secrets — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by requiring provider to produce reimbursement rates from other insurers and payors for particular billing code without making findings as to whether requested production constituted trade secrets and, if so, whether party seeking production had shown reasonable necessity for requested materials
VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES INC., a/a/o Mayra Valdez De La Rosa Petitioner, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-105AP. L.T. Case No. 12-21751 SP 23. October 3, 2014. On common-law certiorari review from a non-final order rendered by the Miami-Dade County Court, Hon. Carlos Guzman. Counsel: Joseph Littman, for Petitioner. Karen Trefzger, for Respondent.
(Before HIRSCH, RODRIGUEZ-CHOMAT, and GORDO, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM) Petitioner Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. requests certiorari relief from a non-final discovery order. Respondent United Automobile Insurance Company requested production of reimbursement rates from other insurers and payors for a particular billing code. Petitioner objected to the discovery request and asserted a trade secret privilege. The trial court overruled the objection and ordered Petitioner to produce the reimbursement rates for a particular time frame without divulging the specific identity of the payor.
This appellate court has certiorari jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(c)(2), and reviews the trial court order for a departure of the essential requirements of law that causes material injury for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c)(2); Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice, Inc., 770 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2503b]. Upon review, this court finds that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, which require the trial court to set forth its findings as to whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret, and if so, whether the party seeking production has shown a reasonable necessity for the requested materials. Sheridan, 770 So. 2d at 222; see also Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731, 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D1012a] (certiorari relief granted where the trial court “failed to make any findings as to whether any or all of the documents in question were protected by the trade secret privilege”); Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp. v. Skipper, 514 So. 2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (trial court order departed from the essential requirements of law because it “ma[de] no determination as to whether or not the documents are trade secrets”). The Court also notes that ‘[t]his determination will usually require that the trial court conduct an in camera inspection of the materials in question to determine whether they contain trade secrets.” Sheridan at 222 (citing American Express Travel Related Servs. v. Cruz, 761 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D1542a]).
THEREFORE, based on the foregoing analysis, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby GRANTED, and the lower court’s discovery order is hereby QUASHED.
* * *
