Kavanaugh v. Stump, 91-2507
| Decision Date | 31 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2507,91-2507 |
| Citation | 592 So.2d 1231 |
| Parties | Robin KAVANAUGH and Michael Kavanaugh, Petitioners, v. Michael C. STUMP, et al., Respondents. 592 So.2d 1231, 17 Fla. L. Week. D367 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ronald A. Nour, Ormond Beach, for petitioners.
David A. Monaco and Michael S. Orfinger, Monaco, Smith, Hood, Perkins, Loucks & Stout, Daytona Beach, for respondents.
This matter involves a petition for writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order compelling discovery which, purportedly, requires production of petitioners' trade secrets to the respondents, who may be competitors of the petitioners. We deny the petition except as to item number 5 of respondents' request to produce which seeks discovery of certain customer information. We hold that the trial court's order requiring discovery of this customer information departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material injury to the petitioners which cannot be remedied on appeal.
Respondents filed suit against petitioners and one Richard Schmeltzer claiming that Schmeltzer had agreed, as part of a sale of a business, not to compete, advise, or assist others to compete against respondents for five years and that he has violated that agreement by assisting petitioners in their business. Respondents are seeking injunctive relief and damages. Petitioners have counterclaimed against respondents for tortious interference with business relations.
In a request to produce, the respondents requested, among other things, the following items:
5. All documents evidencing sales of products made and sold after August 1, 1991, which documents show or identify the product(s) sold, the price charged and paid by the customer, the name and address of the customer, the date of the sale and the commission paid to "Pat" Patton incident to each sale.
The trial court conducted an abbreviated hearing and failed to have an in camera inspection to determine if the matters sought by the respondents are protected as trade secrets and the extent of the protection that should be afforded them. Customer lists can constitute trade secrets where the lists are acquired or compiled through the industry of the owner of the lists and are not just a compilation of information commonly available to the public. East Colonial Refuse Service, Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Valid customer lists and confidential business information are protected as trade secrets. Fortune Personnel Agency of Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Sun Tech, Inc. of South Florida, 423 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Section 90.506, Fla....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Aqua Clear Technologies, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 04-27388-BKC-JKO.
...available to the public" it is a trade secret in which the Debtor has a protectable property interest. See Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So.2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App. 1992); see also, In re R & R Associates of Pinellas County, Inc., 119 B.R. 302, 304 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1990); Braman Motors,......
-
Armor Corr. Health Servs. v. Teal
...... business.'" (citation omitted)); Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So.2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). ("Customer lists can constitute ......
-
Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts v. Consorcio Barr
...(customer information protected as trade secrets); Delucca v. GGL Indus., Inc., 712 So.2d 1186, 1187 (1998) (same); Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So.2d 1231, 1232 (1992) East Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Vetoed, 416 So.2d 1276,1278 (1982) (same). 34. Second, as discussed in the section concerni......
-
Osborne Assocs., Inc. v. Sheryl Cangemi, Julie Calianno, & Silver Salons & Spas, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-1135-J-34MCR
...as to referral patterns, preferences, and insurance accepted, was a protected legitimate business interest); Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1992) (customer information can qualify as a legitimate business interest wherethe information is acquired or compil......