McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc. v. Doe
87 So. 3d 791
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Premises liability claim where Jane Doe sues McDonald’s entities for assault by a franchisee employee.
- Ms. Doe seeks production of operation and training manual materials to prove control by McDonald’s.
- McDonald’s Corporation is franchisor; J.V. & Sons, Inc. operates the Largo restaurant; McDonald’s Restaurants of Florida owns the property.
- Franchise agreement states franchisee controls day-to-day operations and franchisees are not agents of McDonald’s Corporation.
- Trial court found some materials were trade secrets but overbroadly ordered production; required confidentiality agreement.
- Petitions for certiorari granted to review the discovery orders on trade secrets, relevance, and overbreadth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery order is overbroad or improper | Doe | McDonald’s | Petitions granted; orders quashed |
| Whether production of trade secret materials is justified given relevance | Doe seeks broad production for agency evidence | McDonald’s asserts privilege and limits relevance | Order improperly compelled disclosure of trade secrets without adequate showing of necessity |
| Whether franchisor-franchisee relationship supports agency theory for discovery | Doe argues control through manuals implies agency | McDonald’s contends no agency; franchisee controls operations | No agency found; discovery relevance limited by control facts |
| Whether in-camera review was required for trade secrets | Doe relies on broad disclosure to trial | McDonald’s urges in-camera scrutiny before disclosure | Missed in-camera review; requires quashing or remand for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (irreparable harm from disclosure; relevance governs discovery scope)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (discovery limits based on essential legal requirements)
- Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, L.L.C., 67 So.3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (need for in-camera review in trade secrets disclosure)
- Ameritrust Ins. Corp. v. O’Donnell Landscapes, Inc., 899 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (recognizes potential irreparable harm from disclosure of trade secrets)
- Capital One, N.A. v. Forbes, 34 So.3d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (protects trade secrets in discovery; need safeguards)
- Grooms v. Distinctive Cabinet Designs, Inc., 846 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (fishing expedition not allowed; avoid business method disclosures)
- Inrecon v. Village Homes at Country Walk, 644 So.2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (limits on discovery to protect confidential information)
- Hickman v. Barclay’s Int’l Realty, Inc., 5 So.3d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (agency inquiry depends on right of control)
- Parker v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 629 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (agency depends on contract/oversight language; not automatic)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So.2d 119 (Fla.1995) (franchisor’s control can create agency in some contexts)
- Madison v. Hollywood Subs, Inc., 997 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (day-to-day control determines agency; franchisee autonomy matters)
- KPMG LLP v. State Dep’t of Ins., 833 So.2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (need for findings to support production of trade secrets)