Sea Coast Fire v. Triangle Fire
170 So. 3d 804
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Triangle Fire sued former sales rep Andres Davila and his new employer Sea Coast Fire alleging breach of a non‑compete/non‑solicit agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets (customer lists, contacts, pricing).
- Sea Coast asserted the requested discovery sought trade‑secret information and moved for a protective order; Triangle Fire argued the materials were not trade secrets.
- The trial court ordered production of the contested customer and pricing materials without an in camera inspection or an evidentiary hearing, then limited production by date in a subsequent order.
- Sea Coast petitioned for certiorari review, arguing the court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering disclosure without first determining whether the materials were trade secrets.
- The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the discovery orders because disclosure of trade secrets can cause irreparable harm and the trial court failed to perform the required trade‑secret inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly ordered production of customer lists, contacts, and pricing without first determining if they are trade secrets | Triangle Fire: materials are not trade secrets; they are compilations of publicly available information | Sea Coast: materials are trade secrets and protected; court must protect privilege | Court: trial court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering production without in camera review or evidentiary hearing to determine trade‑secret status |
| Whether disclosure of trade secrets constitutes irreparable harm supporting certiorari jurisdiction | Triangle Fire: disclosure is permissible if not a trade secret; irreparable harm not established | Sea Coast: disclosure of trade secrets causes irreparable harm (cat‑out‑of‑the‑bag) | Court: disclosure of trade secrets can be irreparable harm — a prerequisite for certiorari was met |
| What procedural steps must a trial court take before ordering production of alleged trade secrets | Triangle Fire: reliance on counsel’s factual assertions and ordinary discovery practice is sufficient | Sea Coast: court must perform a three‑step inquiry (trade‑secret determination, necessity, findings) via in camera review or hearing | Court: courts generally must determine whether materials are trade secrets (via in camera inspection or hearing), assess necessity, and make findings before ordering disclosure |
| If disclosure is ordered, what protective measures are required | Triangle Fire: narrower scope (date limits) suffices | Sea Coast: court must tailor protective measures to prevent misuse and irreparable harm | Court: if disclosure ordered, court must state findings and adopt protective measures to limit harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012) (elements for certiorari review of nonfinal order)
- Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2012) (irreparable harm is condition precedent for certiorari)
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 2013) (disclosure of trade secrets can be irreparable harm)
- Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (three‑step discovery process for trade secrets and required findings)
- Messer v. E.G. Pump Controls, Inc., 667 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (departure occurs when court orders production without document examination or in camera review)
- Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy, 129 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (court should perform in camera review or hold evidentiary hearing to determine trade‑secret status)
- Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy, 641 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (expert testimony and remand for in camera inspection or hearing may be required to establish trade secrets)
- Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (burden on resisting party to show requested information is a trade secret)