Inrecon v. Village Homes at Country Walk, 94-1785
| Decision Date | 23 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1785,94-1785 |
| Citation | 644 So.2d 103 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2057 INRECON, Petitioner, v. The VILLAGE HOMES AT COUNTRY WALK, Master Maintenance Assoc., Inc., The Village Homes at Country Walk 1-9, Inc., and American Reliance Insurance Company, a New Jersey corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Floyd Pearson Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh & Russomano, P.A., and Scott Jay Feder, for petitioner.
Wallace, Engels, Pertnoy, Solowsky & Allen and Jay Solowsky, for respondents.
Before COPE, GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.
Inrecon petitions for a writ of certiorari. We grant the petition.
Inrecon is a non-party expert witness in insurance litigation pending below. The underlying litigation arises on account of losses sustained at the Country Walk residential community during Hurricane Andrew on August 24, 1992. The defendant, American Reliance Insurance Company, provided coverage for plaintiffs, The Village Homes at Country Walk, Master Maintenance Association, Inc., and The Village Homes at Country Walk 1-9, Inc. (collectively "plaintiffs" or "Country Walk"). The insurer has paid a portion of Country Walk's claim. Plaintiffs brought suit to collect the balance they contend is owed.
Inrecon is a company which specializes in reconstruction of property damaged by fire, hurricane, flood, or other calamity. The company is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan with an office in Tampa, Florida. It has been in business for 40 years and had sales in excess of 50 million dollars last year.
Following Hurricane Andrew, American Reliance hired Inrecon to examine the damage at Country Walk, assess the repairs which would need to be done, and estimate the cost of those repairs. Inrecon did so.
Inrecon was permitted to bid for the Country Walk work. The company offered to perform the reconstruction at a price not exceeding 13 million dollars. However, Country Walk selected another contractor for the work. After work commenced, Country Walk and the winning contractor renegotiated. The contract price was increased significantly. The price eventually paid by Country Walk was substantially higher than Inrecon's bid and exceeded the insurance coverage limit. Plaintiffs requested that American Reliance pay the full amount of the insurance coverage. American Reliance declined to do so, and this litigation followed.
American Reliance hired Inrecon to serve as its expert witness in the litigation. The focal point of Inrecon's assignment is to testify about the 13 million dollar proposal which Inrecon had provided. During discovery, Inrecon has turned over its documents setting forth the scope of work it proposed to perform, and the details of its 13 million dollar estimate.
The present controversy arises out of discovery which has been ordered regarding work which Inrecon performed at three projects which were completely unrelated to Country Walk. During deposition, Inrecon testified that it had performed other Hurricane Andrew reconstruction work in Dade County. Three such projects were residential communities exceeding 2 million dollars each. Inrecon identified the projects and testified that it made a profit on each of the Hurricane Andrew projects.
The plaintiffs then demanded disclosure of the exact profit figures for each of the other three unrelated developments. Inrecon objected to the disclosure of profits and pricing information at the unrelated projects.
The trial court ordered Inrecon to produce computer records revealing the financial details of each of the three unrelated projects. The court also ordered Inrecon to disclose its scope of work estimates and proposals for each of the projects. The trial court found that these records would disclose Inrecon's trade secrets and confidential commercial information, but concluded that adequate protection would be afforded by entry of a confidentiality order.
Inrecon has petitioned for certiorari. Inrecon contends that there is no basis for ordering production of its confidential financial data and trade secrets regarding work which it performed for other customers wholly independent of Country Walk. We conclude that Inrecon's position is well taken.
The Evidence Code provision on trade secrets states, in part: "A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent other persons from disclosing, a trade secret owned by him if the allowance of the privilege will not conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice." Sec. 90.506, Fla.Stat. (1993). 1 The commentary states:
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. It is widely recognized that the trade-secret privilege is not absolute. In each case the judge must weigh the importance of protecting the claimant's secret against the interests in facilitating the trial and promoting a just end to the litigation. Such factors as the potential impact of disclosure upon the holder's business, protection afforded by copyright and patent laws, and necessity of disclosure to the presentation of the opponent's case, may guide the judge in deciding whether to order disclosure. However, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joint Stock Soc. v. Udv North America, Inc.
...See, e.g., In re Continental General Tire, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 609, 610-11 & n. 1 (Tex.1998); see also Inrecon v. Village Homes at Country Walk, 644 So.2d 103, 105 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court, Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 709 (Cal.Ct.App.1992)......
-
Continental General Tire, Inc., In re
...production to show reasonable necessity for the requested materials. 625 So.2d at 1278. 2 See also Inrecon v. Village Homes at Country Walk, 644 So.2d 103, 105 (Fla.Ct.App.1994). The approach adopted in California and Florida is consistent with the federal courts' treatment of trade secrets......
-
McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc. v. Doe
...to uncover business methods, confidential relations, or other facts pertaining to business" (citing Inrecon v. Vill. Homes at Country Walk, 644 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994))). We recognize that discovery of irrelevant materials does not necessarily cause irreparable harm. See Vreeland......
-
McDonald's Rests. of Fla., Inc. v. Doe
...to uncover business methods, confidential relations, or other facts pertaining to business” (citing Inrecon v. Vill. Homes at Country Walk, 644 So.2d 103, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994))). We recognize that discovery of irrelevant materials does not necessarily cause irreparable harm. See Vreeland,......
-
Privileges
...and patent laws, and the necessity of disclosure to the presentation of the opponent’s case. Inrecon v. Village Homes at Country Walk , 644 So.2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Cruz Where a trade secret privilege is asserted, the trial court must d......
-
Witness
...where information alleged to be privileged had already been disclosed by third party. Inrecon v. Village Homes at Country Walk, 644 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The Florida Court of Appeals quashed a trial court’s discovery order which required a third party expert witness to reveal ......