SHOWA DENKO AMERICA, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
SARAH JANE HOPKINS AND DUANE PAUL HOPKINS, RESPONDENTS
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.
Showa Denko sought a writ of certiorari challenging a circuit court's denial of a blanket protective order for documents in a products liability lawsuit. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that while blanket protection was properly denied, the company could still seek protection for individual documents claimed to be trade secrets.
The court held that while blanket protection for all requested documents was properly denied, the circuit court's order correctly preserved petitioner's right to seek protection from the court prior to releasing specific documents claimed to be privileged.
[1] A protective order may be sought to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets during discovery.
[2] A court may deny a blanket request for a protective order while still allowing a party to assert privilege over individual documents.
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“While denying the blanket protection sought by the petitioner, the order clearly provides that the petitioner may seek protection of any privileged material.”
Establishes that the court preserved the right to document-by-document protection despite denying blanket protection
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a lawsuit based on strict liability, breach of warranty, and negligence, respondents requested production of documents from petitioner Showa Denko.…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.280(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the circuit court’s order denying the petitioner’s motion for a protective order. We deny the petition.
During the course of a lawsuit based on strict liability, breach of warranty and negligence, the respondents requested production of documents. The petitioner was willing to provide the documents, but only after entry of a protective order. When the respondents would not voluntarily agree to the entry of such an order, the petitioner requested one from the circuit court on the ground that some of the requested material was privileged as trade secrets. See section 90.506, Florida Statutes (1989) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c). The petitioner’s motion was supported by an affidavit from its president which stated why certain categories of the documents were considered by the petitioner to be trade secrets. The respondents objected to a blanket labelling of all the documents as privileged.
The circuit judge denied the request for a protective order and directed the petitioner to release all the documents. The order further provided that the petitioner could assert a privilege to individual documents, and that the parties should attempt to resolve any disagreements regarding any such privileged matters.
The petitioner contends that it would be irreparably harmed if it must first disclose privileged information and then seek court ordered protection. The petitioner argues that the order contemplates that all of the requested documents be unconditionally re leased to the respondent, regardless of privilege. Our review of the order directs us to a contrary conclusion. While denying the blanket protection sought by the petitioner, the order clearly provides that the petitioner may seek protection of any privileged material. We interpret the order to provide that, consistent with established law, the petitioner may seek protection from the court prior to releasing specific documents. See General Hotel & Restaurant Supply Corp. v. Skipper, 514 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Petition denied.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy, 641 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Scientific Games, Inc. v. Dittler Bros., Inc., 586 So. 2d 1128, 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Furthermore, a protective order can be sought in advance of the release of any documents. Showa Denko America, Inc. v. Hopkins, 586 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Applying these principles to this case, we determine that the threshold issue is whether or not the employer’s flower growing technique is, in fact, a trade secret. As such, we remand this cause for either an in camera inspectio…
Authorities Cited
- Maurice L. Kaye, D.O. v. State, 514 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp. v. Skipper, 514 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)