CUBIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; MIGUEL DE GRANDY, P.A.; AND SCHEIDT & BACHMAN USA, INC., APPELLEES
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.
Cubic Transportation Systems appealed a trial court order compelling production of documents under Florida's Public Records Act, claiming they contained trade secrets. The court affirmed, holding that Cubic failed to take reasonable measures to protect the documents' secrecy as required by Florida law.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination that Cubic failed to take reasonable efforts to protect the documents from disclosure under the Public Records Act because it did not mark them as confidential and did not timely assert confidentiality claims upon delivery.
[1] A party claiming trade secret protection must take reasonable efforts under the circumstances to maintain the secrecy of the information.
[2] Failure to mark documents containing trade secrets as "confidential" can demonstrate a lack of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The trade secret owner who fails to label a trade secret as such, or otherwise to specify in writing upon delivery to a state agency that information which it contends is confidential and exempt under the public records law is not to be disclosed, has not taken measures or made efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain the information's secrecy.”
Establishes the legal standard that trade secret owners must take affirmative steps, including written notice at delivery, to protect information from public disclosure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCubic Transportation Systems submitted documents to Miami-Dade County but failed to mark them as confidential and did not consistently assert confiden…
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 Protection cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
The trial court’s factual determination that Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc., failed adequately to protect an alleged trade secrets claim from the effect of the Public Records Act by taking “efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy[,]” § 688.002(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); § 812.081(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004); Sepro Corp. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 839 So. 2d 781, 783-84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), is well supported by the evidence. It shows, among other things, that, although it did so in other instances, Cubic failed to mark the documents now in question as “confidential,” and continued to supply them, without asserting even a (legally ineffectual) posi-delivery claim to confidentiality for some thirty days after it had once attempted to do so by so informing County staff. See Sepro Corp., 839 So. 2d at 784 (“The trade secret owner who fails to label a trade secret as such, or otherwise to specify in writing upon delivery to a state agency that information which it contends is confidential and exempt under the public records law is not to be disclosed, has not taken measures or made efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain the information’s secrecy. As a practical — and therefore as a legal — matter, a conversation with a state employee is not enough to prevent the information being made available to anybody who makes a public records request.”)(emphasis added). On this basis, and without reaching any of the other issues presented, including the existence and scope of a generalized trade secrets exception to section 119.07, Florida Statutes (2004), the order under review compelling production is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sepro Corp. v. Fla. Dep't OF Env't Prot., 839 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)