LASER SPINE INSTITUTE, LLC, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT WILLIAM GREER, JR., LESLIE DOUCETTE, CLARA DOUCETTE, AND LESLIE DOUCETTE, JR., 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.
Laser Spine Institute sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring disclosure of its billing and collection documents containing trade secrets. The First District Court of Appeal held that while the documents were admittedly trade secrets, the trial court violated the essential requirements of law by ordering their production without making particularized findings that the defendant demonstrated reasonable necessity for the documents that outweighed LSI's confidentiality interest.
No. A trial court order requiring disclosure of trade secrets must contain particularized findings supporting a determination that the requesting party demonstrated reasonable necessity for production despite the existence of trade secrets. The trial court's failure to make such findings constitutes a material departure from the essential requirements of law, even when the order provides for confidentiality protections.
[1] A trial court must make particularized findings to support a determination that a requesting party has demonstrated a reasonable necessity for the production of documents…
[2] Orders improperly requiring the disclosure of trade secrets, even with confidentiality limitations, are subject to certiorari review.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“such orders must contain 'particularized findings in support of the determination that the [requesting party] had demonstrated a reasonable necessity for production despite the existence of trade secrets'”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for trial courts to make specific findings when ordering disclosure of trade secrets
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaser Spine Institute provided medical services to Clara Doucette, one of the plaintiffs in the underlying case. The defendant, Robert William Greer, …
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 Reasonable Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
Laser Spine Institute, LLC (LSI), a non-party below, petitions for certiorari review of an order partially denying its motion for a protective order and requiring it to produce certain billing and collection documents that contain trade secrets. There is no dispute that the documents at issue contain trade secrets, but according to the party seeking the documents — the defendant below, Respondent Robert William Greer, Jr. — the documents are necessary for him to determine the reasonableness of the charges for the medical services provided by LSI to one of the plaintiffs below, Respondent Clara Doucette.1 The trial court' ordered production of the documents subject to a confidentiality agreement to be crafted by LSI and Mr. Greer.
LSI contends that, notwithstanding the requirement of a confidentiality agreement, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring production of the documents without making any findings to support its implicit conclusion that Mr. Greer demonstrated a reasonable necessity for the documents that outweighs LSI’s interest in maintain*634ing 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 demonstrated a reasonable necessity for production despite the existence of trade secrets”); Virginia Electronics & Lighting Corp. v. Koester, 714 So.2d 1164, 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“We conclude that, because the order fails to ... set forth findings of fact supporting a conclusion that disclosure of the trade secrets is reasonably necessary to resolve the issues in dispute, it constitutes a material departure from the essential requirements of the law.”); see also Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cabrera, 112 So.3d 731, 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“Orders improperly requiring the disclosure of trade secrets, even providing for confidentiality limitations, are subject to certiorari review.”). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the challenged order insofar as it denied LSI’s motion for protective order.2
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
LEWIS, C.J., WOLF, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Maximo Guzman Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- KPMG LLP v. State, 833 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Va. Elecs. & Lighting Corp. v. Koester, 714 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)