VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES INC A/A/O JORGE VALDEZ
v.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
Virtual Imaging Services seeks certiorari review of a trial court's discovery order requiring disclosure of reimbursement rates and insurance provider identities. The appellate court grants the petition because the trial court failed to make particularized findings regarding trade secret protection and reasonable necessity for disclosure.
The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, quashing the trial court's order because it failed to include the required particularized findings as to why the requested information was not protected by trade secret privilege or why reasonable necessity justified disclosure of the trade secrets.
[1] Certiorari review is available for pretrial discovery orders that depart from the essential requirements of law and cause material injury for which there is no adequate r…
[2] Orders improperly compelling the disclosure of trade secrets, even with confidentiality provisions, are subject to certiorari review.
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“Orders improperly requiring the disclosure of trade secrets, even providing for confidentiality, limitations, are subject to certiorari review.”
Establishes that discovery orders compelling trade secret disclosure are reviewable via certiorari despite confidentiality protections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVirtual Imaging Services objected to three interrogatories from United Auto Insurance Company seeking disclosure of reimbursement rates Virtual Imagin…
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.
Before RODRIGUEZ R, MILLER B, and RUIZ-COHEN, JJ., (RODRIGUEZ, J.), Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. seeks certiorari review of the trial court's order overruling objections to three interrogatories whereinUnited Auto soughtthedisclosure ofreimbursementrates accepted by Virtual Imaging from otherinsurance providersandthe identity ofsuch providers. A party seeking review of a pretrial discovery order must show that the trial court's order departed from the essential requirements of law and caused "material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal." Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097,1099 (Fla. 1987). "Orders improperly OpinionmedUj^7)^yAftO<^. -<r [*2] . •requiring the disclosure oftrade secrets, evenprovidingfor confidentiality,limitations, are subjectto certiorari review." Cooper Tire &Rubber Co. v. Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731,733 (Fla. 3dDCA2013), citing Grooms v. Distinctive Cabinet Designs, Inc., 846 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The disclosure oftrade secrets createsthe potential for irreparable harm. See SalickHealth Care, Inc. v. Spunberg, 722 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Itappears that the trial court inthis case likely concludedthat either the information subject todisclosure was notprotected by the trade secretprivilege, or that areasonable necessityjustifying disclosure ofthe documents outweighed the petitioner's interestinmaintainingtheconfidentialityof thetradesecrets. But,thetrialcourt's orderfails to include therequired particularizedfindings. See LaserSpine Institute, LLCv. Greer, 144 So. 3d633,634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holdingthatthe trial court's implicit conclusion that appellee demonstrated areasonable necessity for the disclosure of documents was insufficient); Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958So. 2d 507,509(Fla. 3dDCA2007) ("Because theorder under review makes nospecific findings asto why itdeemed therequested information nottobeprotected bythetrade secretprivilege wefind that 'it departs from theessential requirements ofthelawforwhich no adequate remedy may beafforded topetitioners onfinal review.' ") (quotingArthurFinnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d560,562(Fla. 3d DCA 1996)). Accordingly, the petition for writof certiorari is GRANTED, theorderis quashed, andthe case is remanded for entry offurther findings. JJ MILLER and RUIZ-COHEN CONCUR frTCOUNSEL
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Jerome J. Spunberg, M.D., 722 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Maximo Guzman Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Grooms v. Distinctive Cabinet Designs, Inc., 846 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)