Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy
129 So. 3d 501
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Bright House seeks certiorari review of a discovery order compelling disclosure of alleged trade secrets.
- The Cassidys’ 1984 contract with Bright House promised perpetual free cable service to Cassidy family members at their residences in Bright House’s service area.
- In 2010 Bright House terminated free services; a federal court later awarded the Cassidys damages and held they were entitled to perpetually similar service.
- Bright House issued 1099s to the Cassidys in 2011 for the first time, and the Cassidys then sued for breach of contract over taxable “charges” or “costs” under the contract.
- Cassidys sought Bright House’s list of customers who received complimentary services and, for those customers, all 1099s issued; Bright House objected on confidentiality grounds and trade-secret grounds.
- The trial court granted a first motion to compel; Bright House challenged; a second motion to compel led to the petition for certiorari and this court’s review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery order caused irreparable harm requiring certiorari review. | Cassidys argue order compelled disclosure of confidential data; no irreparable harm shown. | Bright House argues disclosure of trade secrets causes irreparable harm. | Yes; certiorari proper for irreparable-harm issue. |
| Whether Bright House preserved the trade secret issue for review. | Cassidys contend Bright House preserved; objections referenced trade secrets. | Bright House properly objected to trade secrets and confidential information. | Yes; issue preserved for review. |
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering disclosure without in camera review and explicit findings. | Cassidys rely on necessity and trade-secret protections; lack of in camera review argued. | Trial court could compel with safeguards; no in camera not necessary. | Yes; order quashed for lack of in camera review and necessary findings. |
| Whether the information, if a trade secret, is necessary and how safeguards should be applied. | Disclosures must be narrowly tailored to relevant, non-privileged information. | If trade secret, information may be necessary; safeguards and confidential logs may be used. | Remanded for further proceedings; trial court may conduct in camera review and apply safeguards if trade secret. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ameritrust Ins. Corp. v. O’Donnell Landscapes, Inc., 899 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (certiorari review limited; necessity and safeguards)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995) (essential requirements of law; irreparable harm framework)
- Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, L.L.C., 67 So.3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (trade secrets; in camera review and safeguards)
- McDonald’s Rests. of Fla., Inc. v. Doe, 87 So.3d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (discovery must be limited to necessary, admissible information)
- East Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (necessity balancing for discovery)
- Grooms v. Distinctive Cabinet Designs, Inc., 846 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (trade secrets discovery and safeguards)
- East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (relevance and discovery necessity considerations)