MORPHO CORPORATION, STANLEY YORK AND HEUNG-KI CHO, PETITIONERS,
v.
LASER APPLICATIONS, INC. AND DALE CHANG, 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.
Morpho Corporation and individual petitioners sought certiorari review of a trial court order overruling their objection to discovery interrogatories seeking disclosure of their post-1999 customer list. The petitioners claimed the list was a protected trade secret developed after their arrest resulting from respondents' alleged false criminal charges, while respondents sought the information to assess damages in a malicious prosecution claim. The appellate court granted certiorari, finding the trial court failed to provide adequate opportunity to present arguments regarding the trade secret privilege and remanded for proper determination.
The trial court's order overruling the objection constituted a departure from essential requirements of law because the court failed to provide the parties adequate opportunity to present arguments, testimony, and evidence regarding the trade secret privilege. The court should have conducted an in camera review to consider protective measures or make findings regarding the alleged privilege.
[1] A trial court must provide parties an adequate opportunity to present arguments, testimony, and evidence regarding a trade secret privilege.
[2] A trial court should conduct an in camera review to consider protective measures or make findings regarding an alleged trade secret privilege.
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“We find the trial court's failure to permit the parties an adequate opportunity to present their arguments, testimony and evidence regarding the trade secret privilege constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court violated procedural requirements by not allowing proper presentation of trade secret privilege arguments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners were arrested based on false criminal charges filed by respondents alleging theft of trade secrets, resulting in complete cessation of the…
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 Theft Of Trade Secrets cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.,
The petitioners seek certiorari review of the trial court’s order which overruled their objection to certain interrogatories which require petitioners to disclose their customer list. The petitioners’ lawsuit alleges the respondents attempted to sabotage the petitioners’ business by filing false criminal charges for theft of trade secrets. Those charges resulted in the arrest of the petitioners. The complaint alleges that when petitioners were arrested, all of their business ceased and petitioners lost all current and potential business from existing customers. Petitioners allege that in order to recoup losses resulting from the respondents’ tortious activities, they developed a new customer list and maintained the list as a closely-held trade secret.
During discovery, the respondents posed an interrogatory which states:
Have any of the Plaintiffs in this case, (Morpho, Inc., Heung Ki Cho, Stanley York) solicited “laser welded bellows” business in [sic] for the years 1996,1997, 1998,1999 and 2000. If so, state:
(a) name and address of third party solicited,
(b) whether any laser welded bellows were sold,
(c) whether Morpho, Inc. manufactured the bellows.
The only issue is the new customer list that had been developed by the petitioners subsequent to the arrest in 1999. The list prior to 1999 contains the names of 16 potential customers. Because the identity of those 16 is critical to the presentation of petitioners’ case in chief, the petitioners disclosed those names.
Respondents claim the need for disclosure of potential new customers of petitioners after the arrest so it can assess petitioners’ claim for damages resulting from the alleged malicious prosecution of petitioners. In other words, respondents contend they are conducting discovery to determine the extent of damages petitioners can assert based on business lost as the result of the arrest which is the subject matter of the malicious prosecution claim.
Petitioners argue the post-1999 list is a protected trade secret. Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). We find the trial court’s failure to permit the parties an adequate opportunity to present their arguments, testimony and evidence regarding the trade secret privilege constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See, e.g., Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice, Inc., 770 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); American Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). At a minimum, the court should have conducted an in camera review to consider appropriate protective measures or to make findings regarding the alleged privilege.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and this case is remanded to the trial court to determine whether the 1999 and 2000 customer list is a protected trade secret.
PETITION GRANTED; CAUSE REMANDED.
SHARP, W„ and GRIFFIN, 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)
- Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice, Inc., 770 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)