MDM CHIROPRACTIC
v.
STATE FARM
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.
MDM Chiropractic sought to quash a discovery order requiring production of information it claimed constituted trade secrets protected by confidentiality agreements. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that the trial court did not depart from the law because it offered to conduct an in camera review, which MDM Chiropractic failed to pursue.
The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law because it expressly offered to entertain a motion for in camera review, and MDM Chiropractic's failure to file such a motion constitutes waiver of the claim. When trade secret privilege is asserted, the trial court must first determine whether the requested production qualifies as a trade secret, and an in camera review is generally suggested; only after finding material qualifies as a trade secret must the court balance interests and set forth findings.
[1] A trial court must first determine if requested production qualifies as a trade secret before engaging in a balancing of interests or setting forth findings.
[2] An in camera review is generally suggested for a trial court to determine if requested production qualifies as a trade secret.
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“Generally, when trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must first determine whether the requested production qualifies as a trade secret.”
Establishes the foundational legal framework for trade secret discovery disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMDM Chiropractic objected to State Farm's discovery requests on the ground that disclosure would require production of information regarding contract …
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 Trade Secret Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
1301 East Broward Boulevard, Ste. 230 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 [email protected]
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner/Plaintiff MDM Chiropractic Center, P.A., a/a/o Samantha Wilson, seeks to quash a trial court order overruling its objections to discovery requested by Respondent/Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Petitioner claims that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by failing to engage in a balancing of interests, set forth its findings, or hold an in camera review before ordering disclosure of trade secrets. State Farm counters that Petitioner waived these claims, and that any error is invited error, because the trial court offered to entertain a motion for in camera review, which Petitioner did not file.
We agree with State Farm for the reasons stated below and deny the Petition. Generally, when trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must first determine whether the requested production qualifies as a trade secret. American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206, 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
An in camera review is generally suggested in making this determination. See Summitbridge Nat'l Invs. LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, LLC, 67 So. 3d 448, 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
Only once the trial court finds that the requested production qualifies as trade secret must the court engage in balancing interests and set forth its findings. American Express Travel Related Services, 761 So. 2d at 1208-09; Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis' Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Here, Petitioner argued to the trial court that the requested discovery would require it to produce information regarding terms and rates set forth in various contracts subject to third party confidentiality agreements, and that the trial court was required to perform an in camera inspection. The trial court agreed, stating that the parties could either enter into a confidentiality agreement or the trial court would entertain a motion for an in camera review. Petitioner declined to do so and instead filed the present Petition. Because of this, the trial court's failure to hold an in camera review and perform the subsequent analysis is not a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.
SASSER, HAFELE, and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Summitbridge Nat'l Invs. LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, L.L.C., 67 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis' Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)