REVELLO MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC., AND MARTIN REVELLO, PETITIONERS,
v.
MED-DATA INFOTECH USA, INC., 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.
Med-Data sued Revello for misappropriating trade secrets in medical billing software, but the court quashed a discovery order requiring Revello to produce its source code. The court held that Med-Data failed to identify with reasonable particularity the nature of its own alleged trade secret before seeking discovery of Revello's code, thereby invoking Florida's 'at issue' doctrine.
The court held that Med-Data failed to meet its threshold burden of identifying with reasonable particularity the nature of its claimed trade secret and did not establish that the trade secret exists. Therefore, Med-Data was not entitled to discover Revello's source code. The court quashed the discovery order but recognized that Med-Data is entitled to some protection through in-camera review if it properly establishes its trade secret claim.
[1] A plaintiff claiming trade secret misappropriation must identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity and establish its existence before proceeding with discove…
[2] A party claiming a privilege waives that privilege in pretrial discovery if the claim necessarily requires the privileged matter to be offered in evidence.
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“Under Florida's "at issue" doctrine, "[w]hen a party has filed a claim, based upon a matter ordinarily privileged, the proof of which will necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered in evidence," he waives his right to claim that the matter is privileged in pretrial discovery.”
Establishes the legal framework that requires Med-Data to disclose its own trade secret when claiming misappropriation as a basis for discovery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMed-Data claims that a former employee developed medical insurance billing software as a trade secret and took it when joining Revello. Med-Data then …
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 Misappropriation Of Trade Secrets cases and more on FLexlaw
Med-Data Infotech, Inc., sued Revello Medical Management, Inc., Martin Revello (collectively Revello), and others1 seeking damages and injunctive relief for misappropriation of trade secrets. See Ch. 688, Fla. Stat. (2008). In simple terms, Med-Data claims that one of its former employees developed a software program to aid in medical insurance billing and that the employee took the program with him when he began working for Revello. Revello is marketing a computer program that Med-Data claims is based on its trade secrets. Med-Data sought to discover the computer source code used in Revello’s program and, over Revello’s objections that its program was a trade secret, the circuit court ordered it to produce the program to Med-Data’s expert. Revello seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order. We grant the writ and quash the order requiring production.
Med-Data began this dispute when it brought suit asserting that its own trade secret had been misappropriated. It concedes that before proceeding with discovery in this kind of suit, the plaintiff must identify with reasonable particularity the nature of the trade secret involved. See Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 148 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1325 (S.D.Fla.2001). The plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, establish that the trade secret exists. To do so, it must disclose *680the information at issue. Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy, 641 So.2d 103, 104-05 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Med-Data contends that it has met its burden, but we disagree.
In response to a defense discovery request for its computer source code, Med-Data stated: “[a]s to source codes, [Med-Data] declines to publish the exact nature of the trade secrets.” Under Florida’s “at issue” doctrine, “[w]hen a party has filed a claim, based upon a matter ordinarily privileged, the proof of which will necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered in evidence,” he waives his right to claim that the matter is privileged in pretrial discovery. Savino v. Luciano, 92 So.2d 817, 819 (Fla.1957); Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So.2d 504, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Savino). Thus it is clear that Med-Data has neither identified with reasonable particularity the nature of its claimed trade secret nor established that it exists. As such, it was not entitled to discover the computer source code used in Revello’s program.
Still, Med-Data is entitled to some protection of its alleged trade secret in pretrial discovery. Ordinarily such matters should be submitted to the circuit court to conduct an in-camera review. But because the alleged trade secret is a computer program, the evidence of its existence likely will consist of computer source code. We presume this from the fact that Med-Data is seeking to discover the computer source code of Revello’s program in order to prove that Revello has misappropriated the alleged trade secret. If the circuit judge does not have the requisite experience in examining such code, he may wish to appoint a neutral computer expert to review Med-Data’s program. If it is established that Med-Data indeed has a trade secret to protect, the court may revisit its discovery request for Revello’s computer source code and Revello’s objections to discovery and craft similar protection for Revello’s alleged trade secret.
We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari and quash the order compelling discovery of Revello’s computer code.
ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SEA Coast Fire, Inc. v. Triangle Fire, Inc., 170 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…existence of a trade secret). Expert testimony may be particularly useful in cases where the trial court does not have the requisite experience in examining the subject information. See, e.g., Revello Med. Mgmt., Inc. v. Med-Data Infotech USA, Inc., 50 So. 3d 678, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“If the circuit judge does not have the requisite experience in examining [computer source] code, he may wish to appoint a neutral computer expert to review [the party’s] program.”). Of course, in a case where it is undispu…
-
AAR Mfg., Inc. v. Matrix Composites, Inc., 98 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…misappropriation cases and cases involving trade secret privilege, and explaining trade secrets are ultimate issue to be decided by court in misappropriation cases). To the extent that Revello Medical Management, Inc. v. Med-Data Infotech USA, Inc., 50 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), can be read to require a threshold finding as to the existence of the trade secret in misappropriation cases, we reject that notion. PETITION GRANTED in part; DENIED in part. LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Owners Ins. Co. v. Armour, 303 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ited to documents pertaining to a specific issue in the litigation—whether Aerolease of America was the owner or lienholder of the insured aircraft—while coverage was still in dispute. Cf. Revello Med. Mgmt., Inc. v. Med-Data Infotech USA, Inc., 50 So. 3d 678, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("Under Florida's 'at issue' doctrine, '[w]hen a party has filed a claim, based upon a matter ordinarily privileged, the proof of which will necessarily require that the privileged matter be offered in evidence,' he waives…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Savino v. Janies Luciano, 92 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1957)
- Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy, 641 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2001)