SCHLOSSBERG 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.
Schlossberg Chiropractic sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order requiring disclosure of trade secrets in discovery. The appellate court held that the petitioner waived its right to challenge the order by failing to file a motion for in camera review when the trial court explicitly offered to entertain one.
The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law because the petitioner waived its claims by declining the trial court's express offer to entertain a motion for in camera review. When a trial court offers to conduct the required procedure and the party refuses to request it, the party cannot later challenge the failure to conduct that procedure.
[1] When a trade secret privilege is asserted to resist discovery, the trial court must first determine if the requested production qualifies as a trade secret.
[2] An in camera review is generally suggested for determining whether requested discovery qualifies as a trade secret.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“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 [...] An in camera review is generally suggested in making this determination [...] 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.”
Establishes the required procedural framework for handling trade secret claims in 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 intelligenceSchlossberg Family Chiropractic, Inc. asserted trade secret privilege in response to discovery requests from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co…
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
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner/Plaintiff Slossberg Family Chiropractic, Inc., a/a/o Katie Barnette, 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. Respondent's Motion for Appellate Attorney's Fees is GRANTED and remanded to the trial court, subject to the trial court's determination that Respondent's proposal for settlement meets the requirements of Florida Statute Section 768.79, and, if applicable, the reasonable amount of attorney's fees.
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)