26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 912a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2611CLAIInsurance — Discovery — Trade secrets — Where purchase agreement and addendum sought in discovery do not contain any information regarding claim at issue, do not discuss scope of work or pricing, and have no effect on issue of coverage and amount of benefits owed, documents are not relevant for purposes of discovery — Furthermore, documents meet criteria for assertion of trade secret privilege, and insurer has not shown reasonable necessity for them
CLAIMCAP LLC, Plaintiff, v. SAFEPOINT INS CO., Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE17011131, Division 49. December 13, 2018. Nina W. Di Pietro, Judge. Counsel: Leonardo Manon III, The Law Offices of Gonzalez & Associates, Miami, for Plaintiff. Curt Allen, Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON IN CAMERA INSPECTION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court for in camera inspection, the Court having reviewed the documents, the relevant legal authorities, and the Court being sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
On November 5, 2018, the Court entered multiple orders regarding discovery for this matter. As a part of those orders, this Court reserved ruling as it related to the production of certain documents pending Plaintiff sending a privilege log and corresponding documents to the Court for an in camera inspection. On or about November 21, 2018, the Court received a cover letter from Plaintiff containing a Memorandum of Law along with a total of 34 pages of documents. The documents consisted of two copies of a purchase agreement and an addendum. The only difference between the copies is that one copy contained no redactions while the other copy contained significant redactions. Although Plaintiff did not provide the Court with a privilege log, Plaintiff’s letter and Memorandum of Law assert that the submitted documents do not go towards a viable claim or defense and are protected by the trade secret privilege.
The documents under review were examined first for relevancy and then for the privilege asserted. “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant. . . .,” or “appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. Upon review, the Court finds that the documents submitted are not relevant for purposes of discovery given the nature of the case. The purchase agreement and addendum do not contain any information regarding the individual claim at issue, and do not discuss generally or specifically Kidwell Group, LLC’s scope of work or pricing. Further, the terms of the agreement and addendum between Kidwell Group, LLC and Plaintiff do not have any effect on whether or not there is coverage pursuant to Defendant’s policy of insurance or the amount of benefits potentially owed.
Despite finding that the documents under review are not relevant and therefore, not discoverable, the Court will also address Plaintiff’s objection of trade secret privilege. When making a ruling on trade secret privilege, a court must first determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret; if so, the court must then require the party seeking production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials. Columbia Hospital (Palm Beaches) Limited Partnership v. Hasson, 33 So.3d 148, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D1067a], citing Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Spunberg, 722 So.2d. 944, 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D113a].
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s documents contain information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Therefore, the objection of trade secret privilege is sustained. Additionally, the Court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of showing reasonable necessity for the documents as Defendant is already in possession of the specific assignment agreement that Plaintiff is relying on to establish standing to bring this suit. Based upon all of the above, the Court finds that the documents submitted for the in camera review are not discoverable and therefore not required to be turned over to Defendant.
