22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 421a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2204RFIGInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Trade secret privilege — Error to overrule trade secret privilege objection to interrogatory requiring disclosure of reimbursement rates medical provider accepts from other insurers without conducting in camera inspection — Moreover, where insurance contract provides that insurer will pay “80% of all medically necessary expenses” without imposing reasonableness requirement, inquiry into reasonableness of charges does not seem necessary
VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC. a/a/o RAUL FIGUERORA, Petitioner, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade. Case No. 13-414AP. September 9, 2014. Counsel: Joseph Littman, for Petitioner. Michael J. Neimand, Karen Trefzger, for Respondent.
(Before LEDERMAN, ZAYAS, and FINE, JJ.)
(FINE, Judge.) This matter comes before this Circuit Appellate Court as a common law Petition for Writ of Certiorari from a county court non-final discovery order. Petitioner, Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., provided MRI diagnostic services to Raul Figueroa, who in turn assigned his PIP benefits to Petitioner. Petitioner and Respondent subsequently became involved in litigation regarding payment of the claims. In the course of litigation, Respondent submitted an interrogatory for Petitioner to provide information regarding reimbursement rates from other insurance carriers including at least one with whom petitioner had entered into contracts with negotiated rates for the MRI diagnostic services.
Petitioner objected to the discovery request, claiming it was overbroad, burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. At a hearing held on October 17, 2013, Petitioner also argued that the requested information was protected by the trade secret privilege. The lower court overruled Petitioner’s objection, but limited the scope of the request and ruled that Petitioner could omit the name of the insurance carrier to avoid the disclosure of any trade secret or proprietary information. Petitioner subsequently filed its Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
On certiorari review of a discovery order, this Court will review whether the lower court departed from the essential requirements of the law, whether the order will cause material injury through subsequent proceedings, and whether the injury is one for which there is no adequate remedy after final judgment. See Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice, Inc., 770 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D2503b] (citing Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)).
Petitioner argues that the requested information is confidential and protected by trade secret privilege, and further argues that the requested information is not relevant to the instant case. For these reasons, Petitioner asserts that the lower court’s order compelling production is a departure from the essential requirements of law that causes irreparable harm. Respondent counters that Petitioner waived its privilege claim by failing to assert it in the written objections to the interrogatory. Respondent also claims that the requested information is relevant to the determination of the reasonableness of the charges.
With regard to Petitioner’s asserted trade secret privilege, there is no indication that Petitioner waived the privilege. As Petitioner points out, the lower court did not rule that Petitioner’s privilege claim was waived, but rather considered the claim prior to entering the discovery order. However, “[w]hen trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret. . . . This 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.” Am. Exp. Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206, 1208-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) [25 Fla. L. Weekly D1542a] (citing Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Spunberg, 722 So.2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D113a]; Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Phosphate Eng’g & Constr. Co., 153 F.R.D. 686 (M.D.Fla.1994)). The Court finds that, by failing to conduct an in camera inspection prior to entering its discovery order, the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law.
Furthermore, although the Court agrees with Petitioner that the requested discovery might not be relevant in the instant case it is not entirely clear on this record. Respondent asserts that the information is relevant to the reasonableness of the charges. A review of the subject insurance policy, however, illustrates that Respondent agreed to reimburse “eighty percent of all medically necessary expenses. . . .” The policy language does not impose a reasonableness requirement. Unless there is another basis to impose a reasonableness requirement, no inquiry into the reasonableness of the charges is necessary. For example, there may be a statutorily imposed reasonableness requirement which even supersedes the Respondent’s contract.
This Court is cognizant that discovery of irrelevant information does not necessarily cause irreparable harm on its own. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. AFO Imaging, Inc., 46 So. 3d 140, 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2343a] (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly S217a]). However, this Court finds that the seeming irrelevance of the requested information, combined with the privilege analysis above, is sufficient to establish irreparable harm to grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
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. (LEDERMAN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.)
* * *
