KPMG LLP, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, AS RECEIVER FOR SUNSTAR HEALTH PLAN, INC., A FLORIDA HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION, 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.
Florida appellate court granted KPMG's certiorari petition on trade secret privilege grounds because the lower court failed to make factual findings supporting reasonable necessity for production of seventy-one documents containing trade secrets.
A trial court must make particularized factual findings explaining why disclosure of trade secrets is reasonably necessary before ordering production, without requiring revelation of the documents' contents.
[1] A trial court ordering production of documents claimed to contain trade secrets must make particularized factual findings supporting reasonable necessity for disclosure w…
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“was deficient because it failed to specify what trade secrets existed and to set forth findings of fact supporting a conclusion that disclosure of the trade secrets was reasonably necessary to resolve the issues in dispute.”
Court explaining the deficiency in the lower court's order, citing Virginia Electronics and Lighting Corp. v. Koester
KPMG sought to withhold seventy-one documents claiming attorney-client privilege and trade secret protection in a proceeding involving the Department …
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.
Petitioner, KPMG, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order requiring production of certain documents for which it claimed either an attorney-client or trade secret privilege. We deny the petition without discussion as to the attorney-client claims. However, we grant the petition on the trade secret privilege claim because the lower court failed to make factual findings to support its conclusions that the Department had demonstrated a reasonable necessity for the production of seventy-one of the documents that the lower court found contained trade secrets. See Virginia Electronics and Lighting Corp. v. Koester, 714 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
As Koester, as well as the cases cited therein, makes clear, an appellate court must be able to conduct a meaningful review of the trial court’s reasons for granting or denying privilege objections. This does not require revealing the contents of the documents, but it does require particularized findings in support of the determination that the Department had demonstrated a reasonable necessity for production despite the existence of trade secrets. As in Koester, the discovery order in question here “was deficient because it failed to specify what trade secrets existed and to set forth findings of fact supporting a conclusion that disclosure of the trade secrets was reasonably necessary to resolve the issues in dispute.” Id. at 1165.
Accordingly, we grant the petition in part, quash the order in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MINER, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Maximo Guzman Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…sons “in connection with trial preparation in this case.” That being so, the trial court failed to set forth in its order the required findings as to why the production of such documents was reasonably necessary. See KPMG LLP v. State Dep’t of Ins., 833 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Rare [*734] Coin-It, Inc., 625 So. 2d at 1277; Gen. Caulking Coating Co., 958 So. 2d at 508. We therefore grant Cooper’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order below. On remand, the trial court is instructed to fir…
-
McDONALD'S Rests. OF Fla., Inc. v. DOE, 87 So. 3d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…trial court’s discovery order was deficient in that it failed to specify findings to support its determination that Ms. Doe demonstrated reasonable necessity for production despite the existence of trade secrets. See KPMG LLP v. State Dep’t of Ins., 833 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Petitions granted; orders quashed. CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ„ Concur. . Unless the context demands otherwise, for convenience, we will refer to the petitioners collectively as McDonald’s. . J.V. & Sons, Inc., produced the…
-
Laser Spine Inst., LLC v. Greer, 144 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…findings to support its implicit conclusion that Mr. Greer demonstrated a reasonable necessity for the documents that outweighs LSI’s interest in maintain [*634] ing the confidentiality of its trade secrets. We agree. See KPMG, LLP v. Dept, of Ins., 833 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (quashing portion of order requiring production of documents containing trade secrets and explaining that such orders must contain “particularized findings in support of the determination that the [requesting party] had demo…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Va. Elecs. & Lighting Corp. v. Koester, 714 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)