FIBEROPTICS TECHNOLOGY, INC., A CONNECTICUT FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION

v.

SUNOPTIC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND LINVATEC CORPORATION, D/B/A CONMED LINVATEC, A FLORIDA FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Fiberoptics Technology, Inc. (FTI), petitions for certiorari review of the trial court’s non-final order granting Respondent’s, Sunoptic Technologies, LLC’s (Sunoptic), motion to compel FTI to answer an interrogatory asking it to identify its cost of production of the LG1050 fiberoptic cable in the years 2017 through 2021, which FTI claimed was protected trade secret

information.

The trial court entered an order compelling disclosure after it conducted an in camera inspection of the documents from which the asserted trade secret information responsive to the interrogatory would be obtained. For the reasons that follow, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order. Trial courts must undertake a three-step analysis when faced with a claim that a discovery request seeks the production of a protected trade secret. Gulfcoast Spine Inst., LLC v. Walker, 313 So. 3d 854, 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

First, the trial court must determine whether the information requested includes trade secrets, which usually requires the court to conduct an in camera review of the documents. Id.

Second, if the request seeks information subject to the trade secret privilege, the court must determine whether the party seeking production can show a reasonable necessity for the information, which is a fact-specific analysis that generally requires the court to decide whether the need for production outweighs the interest in maintaining confidentiality. Id. at 858–59.

Third, if the court determines that there is a reasonable necessity for production of trade secret information, it must determine what safeguards should be put in place to protect the information. Id. at 859. “Any ordered disclosure must be supported by findings.” Id. at 859, 861 (concluding that the “[t]he trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering production of trade secrets without conducting a balancing test, making findings, or implementing protective measures as required by Florida law”).

We agree with FTI that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by compelling disclosure of the asserted trade secret information without making the required findings as to whether the information in question is a trade secret and, if so, whether Sunoptic has proven a reasonable necessity for disclosing it. See KPMG LLP v. State, Dep’t of Ins., 833 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (quashing the discovery order because the trial court failed to specify what trade secrets existed and to set forth particularized findings of fact in support of the conclusion that disclosure of trade secrets was reasonably necessary to resolve the issues in dispute); Laser Spine Inst., LLC v. Greer, 144 So. 3d 633, 633–34 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (granting the certiorari petition

because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring production of documents containing trade secrets without making any findings to support its implicit conclusion that the party seeking the documents demonstrated a reasonable necessity for the documents that outweighed the opposing party’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of its trade secrets); Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731, 732–33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (granting the certiorari petition because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by compelling production “without first making the required findings as to whether the documents in question are, in fact, trade secrets and, if so, whether the plaintiff has proven reasonable necessity requiring the documents’ production”).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the challenged order. PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and RAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________