SETA CORPORATION OF BOCA, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
SETA Corporation sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order requiring it to produce personnel files, trade secrets, and financial information in a state action alleging false and deceptive sweepstake mailings. The court granted the writ as to personnel files but denied it as to financial and trade secret information, finding that wholesale disclosure of confidential employee information violates privacy rights, but that production of financial and trade secret information to the state (not a competitor) with protective conditions is permissible.
The court granted the writ of certiorari quashing the order insofar as it requires production of personnel files, but denied the writ regarding financial and trade secret information. Wholesale disclosure of personnel files containing confidential employee information violates privacy rights and departures from the essential requirements of law. However, financial and trade secret information may be compelled for production to the state (not a competitor) when protective measures are in place and the party has not demonstrated irreparable damage.
[1] A court errs by ordering the wholesale disclosure of personnel files containing confidential information of employees unrelated to the pending case.
[2] Production of personnel files implicates the privacy rights of non-parties who are unaware of the intrusion and unconnected to the transaction at issue.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is error for the trial court to order the wholesale disclosure of personnel files containing confidential information of employees not related to the pending case.”
Establishes the legal standard that personnel files with confidential employee information should not be disclosed wholesale in litigation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSETA Corporation is a mail order business that uses sweepstake mailings to advertise and promote products. The State of Florida filed an action agains…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Trade Secret Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing an order requiring petitioner to produce information which petitioner alleges contains personnel files, trade secrets, and financial information. We grant the writ, but only as to the personnel files.
Petitioner is a mail order business which uses what it describes as “sweepstake mailings” to advertise and promote products. The state filed this action against petitioner alleging that these mailings are false, deceptive, or misleading.
In CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), the third district explained:
It is error for the trial court to order the wholesale disclosure of personnel files containing confidential information of employees not related to the pending case. “Production of those documents implicates privacy rights of persons not aware of the intrusion, and not connected in any way to the transaction at issue.” Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Balkany, 564 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The personnel files in question contain a wide array of nonparty employees’ information, including “confidential and sensitive information about each of [CAC’s] employees, such as social security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, background investigations, drug test results,- counseling reports, evaluations.... ”
We agree with the above reasoning and, as the third district did, find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in requiring the production of the personnel files in toto.
We deny the writ insofar as the financial and trade secret information is concerned. It is significant in this case that it is the State of Florida, not a competitor, who is seeking this information. The trial court wisely provided in the order requiring production that the state could not produce any of the information it receives pursuant to a request under the public records law without giving petitioner ten days notice to seek a court order. In Fortune Personnel Agency of Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Sun Tech, Inc., of South Florida, 423 So. 2d 545, 546 n. 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we noted:
The issue of trade-secret privilege usually arises when a litigant seeks to compel disclosure of secret information which is commercially valuable to his opponent.
The purpose of the privilege is to prohibit a party from using the duty of a witness to testify as a method of obtaining a valuable trade secret when the lack of disclosure will not jeopardize more important interests.
We also observed that courts can order disclosure of trade secrets so long as protections are taken to see that they are not disclosed to competitors. See also Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Egly, 507 So. 2d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)(production of trade secret information not as likely to be abused where party seeking information is not a competitor and has “no real interests in the business techniques.”).
Because petitioner has not demonstrated irreparable damage arising from the production of the financial information and trade secret information under the facts in this case, we deny the petition as to that information, but grant it as to the personnel files.
WARNER, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harborside Healthcare, LLC v. Erick M. Jacobson and Amanda N. Jacobson as co-personal representatives of the Estate of William F. Jacobson, 222 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…coürt orders the "wholesale disclosure of personnel files containing confidential information of employees not related to the pending case,” it departs from the essential requirements of the law. Seta Corp. of Boca, Inc. v. Office of the Att'y Gen., 756 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)). Producing employees’ complete files "would reveal extensive personal information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the’…
-
Thomas v. Smith, 882 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ict courts of appeal have recognized the confidential and sensitive nature of personnel records containing employee social security numbers in protecting such records from wholesale disclosure. E.g., Seta Corp. of Boca, Inc. v. Office of Att’y Gen., 756 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); CAC-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Moreover, various other courts have found that individuals possess a legitimate expectation in the privacy of their social security numbers. E.g., Gre…
-
Fla. First Fin. Grp., Inc. v. De Castro, 815 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…pels production of matters which implicate privacy rights, irreparable harm is demonstrated. See Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So. 2d 583, 586-37 (Fla.1987). Petitioner cites Seta Corp. of Boca, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney General, 756 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), for the proposition that it is error for a trial court to order the wholesale disclosure of personnel files, including home addresses, of employees not related to the pending case. We agree with that case but find that its appli…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cac-Ramsay Health Plans, Inc. v. Cary J. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Egly, 507 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Caron J. Balkany, 564 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Fortune Pers. Agency OF FT. Lauderdale, Inc. v. SUN Tech Inc. OF S. Fla., 423 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)