FIRST CALL VENTURES, LLC AND FIRST CALL MOVERS AND TRANSPORT OF FLORIDA, LLC, PETITIONERS,
v.
NATIONWIDE RELOCATION SERVICES, INC., 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.
First Call Ventures and First Call Movers sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring production of confidential business documents in a trade secret misappropriation case. The court affirmed the production order subject to confidentiality protections but reversed as to the trial court's failure to provide for First Call's reasonable costs of document production.
The court held that the trial court's order requiring production subject to a confidentiality order was proper and did not require an in-camera inspection, but the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to make provision for First Call's reasonable costs of production as a non-party.
[1] A trial court's order for production of documents subject to a confidentiality order may be interpreted as providing confidentiality, obviating the need for an in-camera…
[2] A party generally cannot raise a new legal ground for relief in a petition for writ of certiorari that was not raised before the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Just as in Columbia Hospital (Palm Beaches) Ltd. Partnership v. Hasson, 33 So.3d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), we deem that the trial court has concluded that the documents are confidential and therefore an in-camera inspection is not necessary”
Establishes that production subject to a confidentiality order makes in-camera inspection unnecessary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNationwide Relocation Services sued a former employee, now employed by First Call, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and proprietary informat…
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Non-party petitioners, First Call Ventures, LLC and First Call Movers and Transport of Florida, LLC (collectively referred to as First Call), seek certiorari review of the denial of a motion for protective order to prevent production to respondent, Nationwide Relocation Service, Inc., of confidential and proprietary information concerning First Call’s business. The trial court ordered production of various confidential documents in connection with Nationwide’s suit against a former employee, who is now First Call’s employee, and whom Nationwide alleges misappropriated trade secrets and proprietary information for the use of the employee and First Call. We deny the petition to the extent that it requests an in-camera inspection and confidentiality, as we interpret the trial court’s order as providing confidentiality. We grant the petition in part, concluding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in failing to provide for the reasonable cost of production of documents by First Call.
First Call claims that the court should have conducted an in-camera inspection prior to ordering production of the documents. The trial court ordered production of the material “subject to a confidentiality order.” Just as in Columbia Hospital (Palm Beaches) Ltd. Part *693 nership v. Hasson, 33 So.3d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), we deem that the trial court has concluded that the documents are confidential and therefore an in-camera inspection is not necessary, nor was an in-camera inspection requested before the trial court. Generally, a petitioner cannot raise in a petition for writ of certiorari a ground that was not raised below. See Leonhardt v. Masters, 679 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Because production is subject to a confidentiality order, the production of documents should be delayed, as in Columbia Hospital “until the parties ha[ve] an opportunity to negotiate a confidentiality agreement. In the event the parties are unable to agree, the trial court shall narrowly tailor any order requiring disclosure in such a way as to protect the [petitioner’s] trade secret interests.” Columbia Hosp., 33 So.3d at 151. This may mean that such production will be made solely to the attorneys and not to Nationwide itself. See, e.g., Bestechnologies, Inc. v. Trident Envtl. Sys., Inc., 681 So.2d 1175, 1176-77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The trial court may also have to review documents to determine any disputes regarding confidentiality-
First Call also filed affidavits showing that production of all of the documents requested would be unduly burdensome and require $50,000 of employee time. The trial court made no provision for the payment of First Call’s costs. It is a non-party, so plenary appeal will not afford it relief. Therefore, we may address this on certiorari review.
The failure to make provision for the cost to a non-party to produce subpoenaed documents constitutes a departure from the essential requirement of law. See Abdel-Fattah v. Taub, 617 So.2d 429, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), disapproved on other grounds, Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517, 518 (Fla.1996); Young v. Santos, 611 So.2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), disapproved of on other grounds, Elkins, 672 So.2d at 518; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.351(c). We thus grant the petition and order the trial court to determine and provide for the reasonable cost to First Call for the production of the subpoenaed documents.
Petition granted in part; denied in part; and remanded with instructions.
GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holt v. Keetley, 250 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…join in the objection. Thus, insofar as [appellant] is concerned, the circuit court's ruling amounts to unpreserved error concerning which [appellant] may not complain on appeal."); First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Servs., Inc., 127 So. 3d 691, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ("Generally, a petitioner cannot raise in a petition for writ of certiorari a ground that was not raised below." (citing Leonhardt v. Masters, 679 So. 2d 73, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996))); Johnson v. State, 348 So. 2d 646, 647…
-
Hernando HMA, LLC v. Erwin, 208 So. 3d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…ause “ [generally, a petitioner cannot raise in a petition for writ of certiorari a ground that was not raised below.” Watkins v. State, 159 So. 3d 323, 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Servs., Inc., 127 So. 3d 691, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA2013)).1 PETITION DENIED. [*850] TORPY, J., concurs. COHEN, J., dissents with opinion. . When the trial court announced its ruling and reasoning therefor at the conclusion of the hearing, Petitioner urged the court to reconsider…
-
US Bank Nat'l Ass'n FOR CSFB Heat 2006-7 v. Tranumn, 247 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…claims and affirmative defenses, did not preserve this issue for review. "Generally, a petitioner cannot raise in a petition for writ of certiorari a ground that was not raised below." First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Servs., Inc. , 127 So. 3d 691, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). See also Hernando HMA, LLC v. Erwin , 208 So. 3d 848, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). However, an issue may be preserved without a contemporaneous objection if "it appears from the record that the trial court may have interrupted…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996)
- Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. P'ship v. Hasson, 33 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Melvin Young, M.D. v. Santos, 611 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Bestechnologies, Inc. v. Trident Env't Sys., Inc., 681 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Goodman v. SUN Bank/Miami, N.A., 617 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Leonhardt v. Zulfikar Masters, 679 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)