RICHARD J. GATON, EDWARD STIEFEL AND BLOOD DIAGNOSTICS, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
HEALTH COALITION, INC., WALTER SHIKANY, AND TERRI SHIKANY, 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.
Court denied petition for certiorari challenging orders requiring production of documents to special master for in camera inspection, holding the petition premature because no actual production to third parties had been ordered.
A petition for writ of certiorari challenging an order requiring production of documents to a special master for in camera inspection is premature when no actual production to third parties has been ordered.
[1] A petition challenging an order requiring production of documents to a special master for in camera inspection is premature when no actual disclosure to third parties has…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[w]hen trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret; if so, the court must require the party seeking production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials.”
Court's statement of the proper legal standard for trade secret privilege claims, citing Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc.
Petitioners sought to withhold documents claimed to be protected trade secrets under Florida's trade secret privilege, asserting they constituted cust…
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.
Petitioners have filed this petition for writ of certiorari seeking an order quashing the trial court’s orders dated June 29, 2000, and July 12, 2000, overruling Petitioners’ exceptions to reports and recommendations of a special master. They have asserted that these orders require production of documents that are protected by the trade secret privilege, section 90.506, Florida Statutes (1999), as the materials constitute customer lists.
As we stated in Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), “[w]hen trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret; if so, the court must require the party seeking production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials. If production is then ordered, the court must set forth its findings.” Id. at 1278-79 (citations omitted). At this point, however, the special master has simply ordered petitioners to produce the documents directly to the special master for an in camera inspection. Because no production has been ordered, this petition is premature and is therefore denied. See Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (holding that the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing or an in camera inspection to determine if a trade secret exists, and, if so, to determine the extent of protection necessary to safeguard the trade secret).
Petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)