CHRISTOPHER H. GRAY, PETITIONER,
v.
ALEXANDER PROUDFOOT COMPANY, ETC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioner Gray sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling discovery of customer lists and personal financial information. The court denied the petition, holding that Gray failed to establish that the customer lists constituted trade secrets and that the requested financial information was relevant to damages calculations in a breach of covenant not to compete case.
The court held that Gray failed to prove the customer lists constituted trade secrets, and that the personal financial information was relevant to determining compensatory damages in the breach of covenant not to compete case. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
[1] An appeal from an order compelling discovery may be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari.
[2] A party seeking to protect customer lists as trade secrets must present evidence proving they constitute trade secrets, even when given an opportunity to do so by the tri…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“he failed to present any evidence proving that the customer lists in this particular instance constituted trade secrets, although given an opportunity to do so by the trial court.”
Establishes that petitioner's burden was not met because he had the chance to present evidence but did not do so.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGray was ordered to produce customer lists and personal financial information in discovery. Gray claimed the customer lists were trade secrets but pre…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Covenant Not To Compete cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We treat the appeal from an order compelling discovery as a petition for writ of certiorari.
Petitioner claims that the discovery requested requires him to reveal trade secrets in the form of customer lists. However, he failed to present any evidence proving that the customer lists in this particular instance constituted trade secrets, although given an opportunity to do so by the trial court. Thus, petitioner has not shown that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See First City Development of Florida, Inc. v. Hallmark of Hollywood Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 545 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Toyota Motor Co. v. Moll, 391 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Petitioner also contends that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in compelling production of his personal financial information because there is no basis for awarding punitive damages. First, the harm that may result from disclosure of personal financial information is ordinarily not the type of irreparable harm contemplated in the standard of review for certiorari. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987). Second, the complaint sought to recover as damages the amount of compensation petitioner has been paid as a result of his breach of the covenant not to compete and breach of fiduciary duties. The documents requested were relevant to the determination of those amounts, fifty percent of which were to be paid to the respondent as liquidated damages under the terms of the contract. Therefore, the discovery was relevant to the issue of compensatory damages.
Consequently, we deny the petition.
ANSTEAD, WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- First City Developments OF Fla., Inc. v. The Hallmark OF Hollywood Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 545 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. v. Moll, 391 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Vickery v. State, 391 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)