THOMAS DELUCCA, APPELLANT,
v.
GGL INDUSTRIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
A former comptroller of GGL Industries disclosed confidential business information to third parties while employed. The trial court issued a permanent injunction under Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the appellate court affirmed, rejecting the former employee's arguments that the injunction was unnecessary because he no longer worked for the company and that he was justified in disclosing alleged fraudulent practices.
The court affirmed the permanent injunction, finding: (1) the trial court could disbelieve appellant's credibility regarding destruction of information and cessation of dissemination; (2) competent substantial evidence showed some disclosed information, particularly customer information not available from other sources, constituted trade secrets under Chapter 688; and (3) even suspicion of unfair trade practices does not justify unbridled disclosure of trade secrets.
[1] A permanent injunction may be granted under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act even if the former employee claims to no longer possess confidential information, if the trial c…
[2] Information concerning customers that is not available from other sources may constitute a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
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“His claim that he has no further information to give out, however, is based solely on his own testimony, which the trial court may well have found not to be credible.”
Establishes that the appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility determinations regarding the appellant's assertions about destruction of information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant DeLucca was employed as comptroller of appellee GGL Industries for approximately four years and signed a noncompete agreement upon hire. Whi…
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 Uniform Trade Secrets Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was employed as the comptroller of appellee for approximately four years and had signed a noncompete agreement at the inception of his employment. While appellant was still employed, appellee discovered that an outsider possessed confidential information about the appellee and was disseminating that information to appellee’s clients. Appellee ultimately discovered that appellant had been giving out the' information and brought this action for injunctive relief pursuant to section 688.003, Florida Statute (1994), known as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Appellant admitted that he had given out copies of appellee’s' tax returns, documents reflecting income, including rebates from vendors, customers’ names and addresses, and shipping information. The trial court granted a permanent injunction pursuant to section 688.003, and appellant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether a permanent injunction was proper where appellant is no longer employed by the company and has no farther information to disseminate; (2) whether the information given out constituted trade secrets; and (3) whether appellant was justified in giving out the information because it demonstrated fraudulent practices.
Appellant argues that because he is no longer employed and has destroyed all evidence which he had in his possession, there is no need for an injunction. His claim that he has no further information to give out, however, is based solely on his own testimony, which the trial court may well have found not to be credible. We therefore affirm on that issue. As to the second issue, we find competent'substantial evidence that some of the information given out by appellant, which included information about customers which was not available from other sources, constitutes trade secrets under Chapter 688. Mittenzwei v. Industrial Waste Serv., Inc., 618 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA1993) and cases cited therein. In regard to the third issue, we agree with the appellee that even a person who suspects unfair trade practices does not have unbridled authority to disclose trade secrets. Becker Metals Corp. v. West Florida Scrap Metals, 407 So. 2d 380, 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)(even when fraud is alleged and disclosure of trade secrets is necessary, the court is required to “take protective measures to: (1) protect the interests of the holder of the privilege; (2) protect the interests of the parties; and (3) further the interests of justice.”).
We therefore affirm.
KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arko Plumbing Corp. v. Rudd, 230 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…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.”); Delucca v. GGL Indus., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[W]e find competent substantial evidence that some of the information given out by appellant, which included information about customers which was not available from other sources, constitutes trade secrets under. Chapter…
-
Zodiac Records Inc. v. Choice Env't Servs., 112 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ce that Great Waste obtained customers, including customers of Choice, by cold-calling, which would bear on the issue of whether access to Choice's customers could be obtained through publicly available means. See, e.g., Delucca v. GGL Indus., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).…
-
Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts B v. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2003)…available by others, and is the subject of reasonable efforts by Four Seasons to preserve its secrecy. See Unistar Corp. v. Child, 415 So.2d 733, 734 (1982) (customer information protected as trade secrets); Delucca v. GGL Indus., Inc., 712 So.2d 1186, 1187 (1998) (same); Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So.2d 1231, 1232 (1992) (same); *1326 East Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So.2d 1276, 1278 (1982) (same). 34. Second, as discussed in. the section concerning Count I, Cons…
Authorities Cited
- Mittenzwei v. Indus. Waste Serv., Inc., 618 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Becker Metals Corp. v. West Florida Scrap Metals, 407 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)