23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 684a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2307VALDInsurance — Discovery — Trade secrets — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by requiring medical provider to produce documents containing alleged trade secrets without making findings that either information was not protected by trade secret privilege or that insurer demonstrated reasonably necessity for documents that outweighed provider’s interest in maintaining confidentiality
VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., A/A/O JORGE VALDEZ, Appellant, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-102 AP. L.T. Case No. 13-02658 SP 23 (05). September 21, 2015. An appeal from the Honorable Charles Johnson, County Court for Miami-Dade County. Counsel: Joseph Littman, for Appellant. Michael Neimand, for Appellee.
(Before RODRIGUEZ, MILLER, and RUIZ-COHEN, JJ.)
(RODRIGUEZ, Judge.) Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order overruling objections to three interrogatories wherein United Auto sought the disclosure of reimbursement rates accepted by Virtual Imaging from other insurance providers and the identity of such providers.
A party seeking review of a pretrial discovery order must show that the trial court’s order departed from the essential requirements of law and caused “material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.” Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1987). “Orders improperly requiring the disclosure of trade secrets, even providing for confidentiality limitations, are subject to certiorari review.” Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731, 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D1012a], citing Grooms v. Distinctive Cabinet Designs, Inc., 846 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D1299a]. The disclosure of trade secrets creates the potential for irreparable harm. See Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Spunberg, 722 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D113a]; Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
It appears that the trial court in this case likely concluded that either the information subject to disclosure was not protected by the trade secret privilege, or that a reasonable necessity justifying disclosure of the documents outweighed the petitioner’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the trade secrets. But, the trial court’s order fails to include the required particularized findings. See Laser Spine Institute, LLC v. Greer, 144 So. 3d 633, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1671a] (holding that the trial court’s implicit conclusion that appellee demonstrated a reasonable necessity for the disclosure of documents was insufficient); Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So. 2d 507, 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D1400b] (“Because the order under review makes no specific findings as to why it deemed the requested information not to be protected by the trade secret privilege we find that ‘it departs from the essential requirements of the law for which no adequate remedy may be afforded to petitioners on final review.’ ”) (quoting Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D1202a]).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED, the order is quashed, and the case is remanded for entry of further findings. (MILLER and RUIZ-COHEN, JJ., concur.)
