ROBIN KAVANAUGH AND MICHAEL KAVANAUGH, PETITIONERS,
v.
MICHAEL C. STUMP, ET AL., 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.
The court reviewed a discovery order compelling production of customer information in a non-compete dispute. The court held that customer lists can constitute protectable trade secrets and that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an in camera inspection before ordering disclosure of customer information.
The court held that the trial court's order requiring disclosure of customer information departed from essential requirements of law and must be remanded for proper consideration. Customer lists can constitute protectable trade secrets, and the trial court must conduct an in camera inspection to determine whether the requested information qualifies for protection. Parties do not waive confidentiality of all customer information by naming some customers in a counterclaim.
[1] A trial court must conduct an in camera inspection to determine if matters sought by discovery are protected as trade secrets and the extent of protection to be afforded…
[2] Customer lists can constitute trade secrets if acquired or compiled through the owner's industry and not merely a compilation of publicly available information.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Customer lists can constitute trade secrets where the lists are acquired or compiled through the industry of the owner of the lists and are not just a compilation of information commonly available to the public.”
Establishes the legal standard for when customer lists qualify as protectable trade secrets under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents sued petitioners and Richard Schmeltzer alleging Schmeltzer breached a non-compete agreement by assisting petitioners in their business. P…
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 Waiver Of Confidentiality cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
This matter involves a petition for writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order compelling discovery which, purportedly, requires production of petitioners’ trade secrets to the respondents, who may be competitors of the petitioners. We deny the petition except as to item number 5 of respondents’ request to produce which seeks discovery of certain customer information. We hold that the trial court’s order requiring discovery of this customer information departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury to the petitioners which cannot be remedied on appeal.
Respondents filed suit against petitioners and one Richard Schmeltzer claiming that Schmeltzer had agreed, as part of a sale of a business, not to compete, advise, or assist others to compete against respondents for five years and that he has violated that agreement by assisting petitioners in their business. Respondents are seeking injunctive relief and damages. Petitioners have counterclaimed against respondents for tortious interference with business relations.
In a request to produce, the respondents requested, among other things, the following items:
5. All documents evidencing sales of products made and sold after August 1, 1991, which documents show or identify the product(s) sold, the price charged and paid by the customer, the name and address of the customer, the date of the sale and the commission paid to “Pat” Patton incident to each sale.
The trial court conducted an abbreviated hearing and failed to have an in camera inspection to determine if the matters sought by the respondents are protected as trade secrets and the extent of the protection that should be afforded them. Customer lists can constitute trade secrets where the lists are acquired or compiled through the industry of the owner of the lists and are not just a compilation of information commonly available to the public. East Colonial Refuse Service, Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Valid customer lists and confidential business information are protected as trade secrets. Fortune Personnel Agency of Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Sun Tech, Inc. of South Florida, 423 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Section 90.506, Fla.Stat. (1989). Rule 1.280(c)(7) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to protect discovery of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information by prohibiting or restricting disclosure.
We reject the respondents’ contention that the petitioners have waived all objection to disclosure of customer information by listing the names of certain customers in their counterclaim. Petitioners have waived the confidentiality of the names of the customers named in the counterclaim but they have neither waived the confidentiality of the names of other customers nor of other protected business information. The petitioners have not ceased to treat this latter information as confidential. Savino v. Luciano, 92 So. 2d 817, 819 (Fla.1957).
We remand this cause to the trial court to afford the parties sufficient time to present their arguments concerning whether the matters encompassed in item five of respondents’ request are trade secrets and, if they are, a determination must be made as to the extent of the protection to be afforded them. It may be necessary for the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection of the matters requested by item 5 in order to resolve the issues involved in this proceeding.
We have also considered the petition as to the other matters ordered disclosed by the trial court and we find no merit in petitioners’ contention regarding these items. Additionally, we would note that the trial court made no ruling regarding disclosure of a certain recipe book or books and that the trial court conceivably may not require disclosure of this particular matter. Therefore, it would be premature for us to rule upon it.
PETITION DENIED IN PART; GRANTED IN PART and REMANDED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SEA Coast Fire, Inc. v. Triangle Fire, Inc., 170 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…rade secrets include confidential business information such as a customer list, when the list is not just a compilation of information readily available to the public, but rather acquired or compiled through the owner’s industry. Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); E. Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276, 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). To determine whether the requested information constitutes a trade secret, the trial court may perform an in camera inspection or other…
-
Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy, 641 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…arty, and to further the interests of justice. Id.; § 90.506, Fla.Stat. (1991); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(c)(7). The court may conduct an in camera inspection to review whether the employer’s information constitutes a trade secret. See Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Austin v. Barnett Bank, 472 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…
-
Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy, 129 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…forts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. A customer list that is not readily ascertainable by the public can be a trade secret. East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231,1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); East Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276, 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Here, the trial court ordered disclosure without an in camera review or making any findings regarding whether the disputed information…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Savino v. Janies Luciano, 92 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1957)
- E. Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Fortune Pers. Agency OF FT. Lauderdale, Inc. v. SUN Tech Inc. OF S. Fla., 423 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)