ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JERROLD ROSS, AN INDIVIDUAL, RESPONDENT
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 trial court must determine whether financial records contain trade secrets and whether they should be redacted or disclosed with protections.
[1] A prior appellate ruling that financial records are discoverable does not preclude a subsequent determination of whether information within those records is protected by…
[2] A trial court must determine whether information contained within financial records constitutes a trade secret and whether it should be redacted or disclosed with appropr…
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 intelligenceAspex sought to redact identifying information containing trade secrets from financial documents ordered for discovery. The trial court denied the mot…
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
[*119] PER CURIAM.
We grant the instant petition for writ of certiorari in which Aspex Eyewear, Inc., seeks review of an order of the circuit court denying its motion to redact certain identifying information allegedly containing trade secrets from documents to be produced at discovery. In our earlier opinion in this case, see Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Ross, 778 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), we ruled that financial documents should have been disclosed because these records were relevant to proving petitioner’s “profits,” an element of the alleged damages. This court did not reach the question of whether any of those documents would yet be protected by the trade secret privilege.
Based on comments by the trial judge at the hearing on remand, the judge apparently interpreted this court’s earlier decision to mean that all financial records must be disclosed, whether or not they contained trade secrets, and denied petitioner’s motion for redaction primarily on that basis. Aspex has objected to disclosing the names of its customers, suppliers, employees, and representatives included in various financial records, claiming they are protected trade secrets. As previously mentioned, it was not this court’s intent to imply that any trade secrets would lose their protection simply because they were contained within the financial records.
Accordingly, the trial court must now determine whether any information contained within the financial records are trade secrets, and whether they should be redacted or disclosed with appropriate protections. See Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Rare Coin-it, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So. 2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Phosphate Eng’g & Constr. Co., 153 F.R.D. 686 (M.D.Fla.1994). We, therefore, quash the order denying the motion for leave of court to redact identifying information and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
KLEIN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, 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)
- Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Jerrold Ross, 778 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)