LASER SPINE INSTITUTE, LLC, PETITIONER,
v.
HAVAL M. MAKANAST; MOISES DISHMEY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; SUBZALI JANMOHAMED; AND SHAMIM RESHAMWALLA, 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.
The trial court must ensure a protective order or confidentiality agreement is in place before compelling the production of trade secrets.
[1] Certiorari review is appropriate for a discovery order compelling the production of trade secrets, as disclosure would cause irreparable harm not curable on plenary appea…
[2] When a trial court orders the disclosure of trade secrets, it must implement measures to protect the interests of the trade secret holder, the parties, and the furtheranc…
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 intelligenceLaser Spine Institute (LSI) petitioned for certiorari review of a nonfinal order compelling production of documents it claimed were trade secrets. 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 Confidentiality Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Laser Spine Institute (LSI) petitions for certiorari review of a nonfinal order granting a motion to compel production of documents relating to its billing and collection practices. LSI claims, and there seems to be no credible counterargument, that these documents are trade secrets. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(A). The order is renewable by certiorari because disclosure of the material would cause irreparable harm that cannot be cured on plenary appeal. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995) (holding certiorari review appropriate when a discovery order relates to materials protected by privilege, work product, or trade secret). The trial court properly concluded that the documents are subject to production.
But when the trial court directs disclosure of trade secrets, it must take appropriate measures to protect the interests of the trade secret holder, the interests of the parties, and the furtherance of justice. § 90.506, Fla. Stat. (2010). We conclude that a protective order or other confidentiality agreement should be in place before release of the documents. See Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. P’ship v. Hasson, 33 So.3d 148, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Before the trial court, respondents did not dispute that LSI was entitled to such protection. Indeed, a confidentiality agreement was discussed at the hearing on the motion to compel, and the respondents proposed one to LSI.
LSI is entitled to relief to the limited extent that the trial court should have stayed LSI’s production until the parties had an opportunity to negotiate a proper protective order or confidentiality agreement. Accordingly, we grant the petition in part and remand for entry of a protective order or confidentiality agreement. In the event the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the trial court shall enter a narrowly tailored order protecting LSI’s trade secrets. Id.
Granted in part and remanded.
DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P. v. Shelia Endicott and her husband Dan Endicott, 81 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…remedied on direct appeal. Cor-dis, 988 So. 2d at 1166 (citing D. Stephenson Constr., Inc. v. Mendiguren, 958 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); and Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boeeher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla.1999)). See also Laser Spine Inst., LLC v. Makanast, 69 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (finding order granting a motion to compel production of documents was reviewable by certiorari where petitioner alleged the documents contained trade secrets of which the disclosure would cause irreparable harm, and respondent di…
-
Gulfcoast Surgery Ctr., Inc. v. Earnest Fisher and Kelley N. Penney, 107 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…t an in camera review or balancing test, the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law). This court has previously held that internal cost structure information constitutes a trade secret. See Laser Spine Inst. v. Makanast, 69 So. 3d 1045, 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (referring to documents pertaining to billing and collection practices); Summitbridge Nat’l Invs., 67 So. 3d at 450 (referring to information pertaining to how different types of patients are charged). However, in his respon…
-
Rocket Grp., LLC v. Jatib, 114 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ty hospital to produce confidential information, to the extent trial court did not take protective measures; discovery should have been stayed until parties had opportunity to negotiate confidentiality agreement); Laser Spine Inst., LLC v. Makanast, 69 So. 3d 1045, 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (granting certiorari relief in part; while trial court’s determination that trade secret documents had to be disclosed was proper, it should have stayed production until parties had opportunity to negotiate protective order…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. P'ship v. Hasson, 33 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)