Gen. Caulking Coating v. J.D. Waterproofing
| Decision Date | 30 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D06-3041.,3D06-3041. |
| Citation | 958 So.2d 507 |
| Parties | GENERAL CAULKING COATING CO., INC., Petitioner, v. J.D. WATERPROOFING, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Vincent F. Vaccarella, P.A., and Vincent F. Vaccarella, and Jordan M. Keusch, Aventura, and Rachael E. Kobin, for petitioner.
Ferencik, Libanoff, Brandt, Bustamante & Williams, P.A., and Gavin D. Caddy, and Lori R. Shapiro, Ft. Lauderdale, for respondent.
Before GREEN, RAMIREZ, and CORTIÑAS, JJ.
General Caulking & Coating Co., Inc., petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review and quash the trial court's order denying its "Motion to Quash Subpoena or in the Alternative Motion for Protective Order." Because we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law, by ordering production of information and documents claimed to be trade secrets without conducting the requisite in camera inspection and making the necessary findings of fact, we grant the petition and quash the order under review.
This matter arises out of a construction project located in Miami-Dade County. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., was the general contractor on the project. Bovis negotiated with J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., for the latter to perform the waterproofing work on the project. The parties entered into a letter of intent, but never contracted for the performance of the work. Bovis subsequently entered into a sub-contract with petitioner, General Caulking, to perform the waterproofing on the project.
J.D. Waterproofing brought suit against Bovis for breach of contract. General Caulking is not a party in the lower court action. Subsequently, J.D. Waterproofing served General Caulking with a subpoena duces tecum requesting, among other things, the bid and payment information for the project. General Caulking filed its Motion to Quash Subpoena or in the Alternative Motion for Protective Order asserting that the subpoena sought confidential business and trade secret information. The trial court heard General Caulking's motion during motion calendar, and summarily denied the same. This petition followed:
It is a well-established principle of procedure that:
[w]hen the trade secret privilege is asserted as the basis for resisting production, the trial court must determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade secret; if so, the court must require the party seeking production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials. . . ....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sea Coast Fire, Inc. v. Triangle Fire, Inc.
...for production; and(3) if production is ordered, the trial court must set forth its findings.Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So.2d 507, 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Trade secrets are defined in Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act as:[I]nformation, including a for......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
... ... 3d 804, 80708 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., ... ...
-
Bank of Am. v. The Bank of N.Y. Mellon
... ... (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing Gen. Caulking Coating Co., ... Inc. v. J.D ... ...
-
Tire v. Cabrera
...560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Rare Coin–It, Inc. v. I.J.E., 625 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Gen. Caulking Coating Co. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So.2d 507, 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that once determination of reasonable necessity has been made, the trial court must set for......