First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Services, Inc.
127 So. 3d 691
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- First Call petitions for certiorari to review denial of a protective order limiting production of confidential materials to Nationwide.
- Nationwide sues a former employee who is now employed by First Call for misappropriation of trade secrets and proprietary information.
- The trial court ordered production of documents subject to a confidentiality order.
- First Call argues for an in-camera inspection prior to production, which the trial court did not conduct.
- The court also did not provide for First Call’s costs of production, though affidavits claimed $50,000 in employee time would be required.
- The court suggested confidentiality until parties negotiate a confidentiality agreement; otherwise production could be limited to attorneys, and disputes may require court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the trial court have conducted an in-camera inspection? | First Call argues in-camera review is required before production. | Court deemed documents confidential and proceeding without in-camera review was appropriate. | No reversible error for lack of in-camera inspection. |
| Whether production should be delayed pending confidentiality negotiations | Need to negotiate confidentiality and tailor the order to protect trade secrets. | Confidentiality already acknowledged; production can proceed under a protective regime. | Production should be delayed pending confidentiality negotiations and narrowly tailored protections. |
| Whether the court erred by not providing for First Call's production costs as a non-party | Affidavits show substantial time and cost burden; no provision for costs. | Not addressed in opinion; focus is on confidentiality and cost issues. | Departure from essential requirement of law; trial court must determine and provide reasonable cost. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. Part*693nership v. Hasson, 33 So.3d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (confidentiality governs when reviewing protective orders; in-camera inspection not required)
- Columbia Hosp., 33 So.3d 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (trial court should allow negotiation and narrowly tailor orders protecting confidentiality)
- Bestechnologies, Inc. v. Trident Envtl. Sys., Inc., 681 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (production may be limited to attorneys in confidential matters)
- Abdel-Fattah v. Taub, 617 So.2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (failure to provide costs to a non-party is a departure from essential requirements of law)
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (related to standards for costs and production in confidential contexts)
- Young v. Santos, 611 So.2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (costs and procedures in production of subpoenaed documents)