VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES INC.

v.

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

FINE, J.

This matter comes la Certiorari from a county court non-fit al di T—472 P0002/0004 F-686

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR, MIAMI DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

' .".‘li. @ . ~:-_-,- \ _ H . C‘-‘<3 2' 1* £31 ‘L fli- "' . . .n1 =1 ‘~53 * “‘;l.:(=-=‘ gse was‘ll,-i a-'- I0. -'-'1. g._._: .~ '-.5;-;:<.5_. e-er»-»~ . - N <. 6| 29- ~|-I 1"‘ .=2:§“' ‘ . . 9 §'Z' ‘ii ~ efore this Circuit Appellate Court as a common law Petition for Writ of scovery order. Petitioner, Virtual Imaging Services, Inc., provided MRI diagnostic services to R !Fi au gueroa, who in turn assigned his PIP benefits to Petitioner. Petitioner and Respondent subs ntl be eque y came involved in litigation regarding payment of the claims. In the course “of liti atio R g n, espondent submitted an interrogatory for Petitioner to provide information regarding reimbursement rates from other insurance carriers i 01 di ' " ' n u ng at least one with whom petitioner had entered into contracts with negotiated rates for the MRI diagnostic services. ‘ ' Petitioner objected to the cliscove and not reasonably calculated to lead to th di ry request, claiming it was ovcrbroad, burdensome, vague, e scovery of admissible evidence. At a hearing held l [*2] O9-O9-’ ’i4 14:07 See Sheridan Hea1the_orp,,_,I,nc,_, TotalHealth Choice, Inc, 770 So. 2d 221, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (citing Martin-Jo1inson,,_Inc.gp Savage, 509 Sc.²<l 1097 (Fla. 1987)). Petitioner argues that the requested information is confidential and protected by trade secret privilege, and further argues that the requested information is not relevant to the instant case. For these reasons, Petitioner asserts that the lower court’s order compelling production is a departure from the essential requirements ot‘ law that causes irreparable harm. Respondent counters that Petitioner waived its privilege claim by failing to assert it in the written objections to the interrogatory. Respondent also claims that the requested information is relevant to the determination ofthe reasonableness of the charges. With regard to Petiti0ner’s asserted trade secret privilege, there is no indication that Petitioner waived the privilege. As Petitioner points out, the lower court did not rule that Petitioner’s privilege claim was waived, but rather considered the claim prior to entering the discovery order. However, “[w]hen trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret.... This detemtination will usualiy require that the trial court conduct an in camera inspection of the materials in question to determine whether they contain trade secrets.“ ,1§p1_. Exp. Trovei Related Services. Inc. v,Cruz, 761 So. 2d I206, 1208-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citing Salick Health Care. Inc. v. ,Sp,unberg, '/22 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); M Alunlinurn 85 Chem. Corp. v. Pl1ospiiateEng'g &_,Constr. Co., 153 F.R.D. 686 (M.D.Fla.l994)). The Court finds that, by failing to conduct an inicamcra inspection prior to entering its discovery order, the lower court departed from the essential requirements oflaw. [*3] O8~O9~’ '14 14:0? FR0l'4— T—4?2 A review of the subject insurance policy, however, illustrates that Respondent agreed to reiinburse “eighty percent of all medically necessary expenses...” The policy language does not impose a reasonableness requirement. Unless there is another basis to impose a reasonableness reqtfirelnent, no inquiry into the reasonableness of the charges is necessary. For example, there may be a statutorily imposed reasonableness requirement which even supersedes the Respondent’s contract. This Court is cognizant that discovery of irrelevant information does not necessariiy cause inreparable harm on its own. Cotton States Mut._Ins. Co. v. AFO Imaging, Ina, 46 So. 3tl 140, 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing Allstatelns. Co. v. Langston, 65$ So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla..l995)). However, this Court finds that the seeming irrelevance of the requested information, combined with the. privilege analysis above, is sufficient to establish irreparable harm to grant the petition for writ of eertiorari. THEREFORE, based on the foregoing analysis, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby GRANTED, and the lower court’s discovery order is hereby QUASHED. LEDBRMAN and ZAYAS, 13., concur. ti - , X’ t» HOl\l._ALAN F E

CIRCUIT CO

T JUDGE

non. ANGEL A15. 2/was cmcurr co RT JUDGE non. CIND DERMAN _ _mwNm_m., ,0 ‘ ctacorre URTJUDGE ofi _ N Rmommo y l