BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 338 So.3d 338

Bank of America (non-party) sought certiorari review of trial-court orders requiring production of policies and procedures, chiefly those governing lost-note affidavits.
Bank of America objected, claiming those materials contained trade secrets, but the trial court ordered production without first conducting an in camera inspection or an evidentiary hearing and without making findings.
Florida law (as explained in Sea Coast Fire and related precedents) requires a three-step inquiry before ordering production of alleged trade secrets and, if production is ordered, appropriate protective measures.
Bank of America initially asserted trade-secret objections but did not request an in camera review or evidentiary hearing at the original objections hearing; it first requested that relief in a motion for reconsideration.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred to the extent it ordered production of the disputed policies/procedures without following the Sea Coast Fire procedure and without making findings or imposing protective measures; it quashed those parts of the orders and remanded for the required analysis.
The court also ruled Bank of America risked waiver by failing to timely request an evidentiary hearing, but noted the petition was filed within the applicable time because the trial court promptly addressed the motion for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court may order production of documents asserted to be trade secrets without an in camera review or evidentiary hearing and specific findings	Bank: Trial court must perform Sea Coast Fire three-step analysis and protect trade-secret interests before ordering production	Trial court/order-proponent: Production was proper as ordered	Court: Error. Trial court must apply Sea Coast Fire test, make findings, and, if production ordered, impose protective measures
Whether Bank of America waived its right to challenge production by failing to request in camera review at the initial hearing	Bank: Objection referenced trade secrets; reconsideration preserved the issue	Opponent: Bank failed to timely raise the procedural remedy and thus waived it	Court: Bank risked waiver because it did not request in camera inspection/hearing at the initial proceeding; the proponent of the hearing must raise it initially
Whether certiorari relief is appropriate for the non-final discovery order	Bank: Failure to follow required procedure causes irreparable harm and departs from essential requirements of law	Opponent: Discovery order is reviewable on appeal postjudgment	Court: Certiorari granted in part — where disputed materials implicate trade secrets, relief warranted; where no trade-secret claim exists, no certiorari relief

Sea Coast Fire, Inc. v. Triangle Fire, Inc., 170 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (sets forth the three-step test for production of trade secrets and requires findings and protective measures)
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (recognizes disclosure of trade secrets can cause irreparable harm)
Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (earlier authority describing the process for determining production of trade secrets)
Couto v. People’s Tr. Ins. Co., 320 So. 3d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (timing rules for seeking appellate review of nonfinal orders)
LaCarrere v. Reilly, 987 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (motions for reconsideration of nonfinal orders do not toll appeal deadlines)