District Court finds that trial court’s order lacked specificity, stressing that when a party asserts privilege objections, the trial court must make specific findings to support the overruling of those objections.

This case involved a roof repair performed by Apex Roofing and the insured having executed an Assignment of Benefits (AOB). The carrier issued payment, but Apex Roofing felt it was entitled to a larger payment. When the carrier would no pay additional benefits, Apex Roofing sued them for breach of contract. During discovery, the carrier requested several documents that Apex Roofing objected to, claiming the documents sought contained privileged trade secrets. Apex Roofing also refused to answer several questions at deposition, claiming privileged trade secret objections. At the hearing where the carrier sought to overrule the objections, Apex Roofing argued the information and documents were not likely to lead to admissible evidence, but if the court disagreed, an in-camera evidentiary hearing should occur. The court found the information and documents discoverable, overruled Apex Roofing’s objections, and also refused to hold an in-camera inspection of the documents. The order merely advised which requests and questions Apex Roofing was to respond to. Apex Roofing requested a rehearing, claiming the written order failed to contain specific findings and how the court determined the applicability of the trade secret privilege without an in-camera inspection. Apex Roofing also filed its appeal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals agreed with their sister courts that, when the parties dispute entitlement to the trade secret privilege, the court’s determination will usually require that the court conduct an in-camera inspection of the documents to determine whether they contain trade secrets. The carrier argued that an in-camera inspection was not needed because single transaction pricing does not fit the definition of trade secret. The court disagreed, noting that if documents related to a bottom-line bid and general terms include information regarding the bidder’s underlying calculations or bid development process, the documents could possibly contain trade secrets. Apex Roofing argued their single-transaction materials at issue could be used to ascertain Apex Roofing’s commercial methods. The court determined Apex Roofing’s assertion raised a factual dispute regarding their entitlement to the trade secret privilege. The court determined that the instant dispute required an in-camera review of the document and the trial court’s failure to perform an in-camera inspection departed from the essential requirements of law. Further, the court agreed that the trial court’s order lacked specificity, asserting that when a party asserts privilege objections, the trial court must make specific findings to support the overruling of those objections. 

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}