Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cabrera
112 So. 3d 731
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Guzman personal representative sued Cooper for negligent design/manufacture of tires after a Ford Explorer crash (2010).
- Discovery requests included interrogatories and production requests, some objected to on relevancy and others asserted as trade secrets.
- Cooper produced some documents for in camera inspection and moved for a Protective Order of Confidentiality.
- Guzmans' representative moved to compel, supported by tire expert affidavit; Cooper opposed with exhibits.
- Trial court held all produced documents were relevant and subject to discovery, granted protective order for confidentiality, but failed to make explicit findings on trade secrets or reasonable necessity for production.
- Petition for writ of certiorari granted; remanded to determine which documents are trade secrets and, for those, whether reasonable necessity exists, with proper findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements by ordering production without findings on trade secrets and necessity. | Cooper: required to determine trade secrets and necessity first. | Guzmans: trial court had discretion to compel production. | Yes; certiorari granted for missing findings. |
| Whether the court properly applied trade secret protections with a confidentiality order. | Cooper argues confidentiality insufficient without proper trade secret findings. | Guzmans: protective order preserves privilege while permitting discovery. | Court must first identify trade secrets and necessity before disclosure. |
| Whether appellate review is possible without explicit findings on necessity. | Cooper: lack of findings prevents meaningful review. | Guzmans: protective order should suffice for review. | Remanded to make explicit findings on trade secrets and necessity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grooms v. Distinctive Cabinet Designs, Inc., 846 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (certiorari review for orders disclosing trade secrets; confidentiality limits)
- Langston v. Allstate Ins. Co., 655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995) (trade secret disclosure and necessity considerations)
- Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So.2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (necessity must be demonstrated with findings)
- Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., 625 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (trial court must provide findings supporting necessity)
- Gen. Caulking Coating Co. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So.2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (scope of necessity and documented findings for trade secrets)
- KPMG LLP v. State Dep’t of Ins., 833 So.2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (foundational requirement of findings on necessity)
- Va. Elec. & Lighting Corp. v. Koester, 714 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (need for specific findings before disclosure of trade secrets)