McDonald's Rests. of Fla., Inc. v. Doe
| Decision Date | 12 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 2D11–619,2D11–620.,s. 2D11–619 |
| Citation | 87 So.3d 791 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | McDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF FLORIDA, INC., Petitioner, v. Jane DOE; J & I Management Company, Inc.; Constance Molnar; Michele Salerno; Juan Vazquez; and J.V. & Sons, Inc., Respondents. McDonald's Corporation, Petitioner, v. Jane Doe; J & I Management Company, Inc.; Constance Molnar; Michele Salerno; Juan Vazquez; and J.V. & Sons, Inc., Respondents. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Anthony J. Russo and Ezequiel Lugo of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP, Tampa; and F. Bryant Blevins and Gilda G. Romano of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP, Miami, for Petitioners McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc., and McDonald's Corporation.
Jeffrey E. Appel of Appel Law Group, Lakeland, for Respondent Jane Doe.
No appearance for Respondents J & I Management Company, Inc., Constance Molnar, Michele Salerno, Juan Vazquez, and J.V. & Sons, Inc.
McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc., and McDonald's Corporation 1 each petition for a writ of certiorari. They seek review of nonfinal orders compelling production of documents and other discovery. We have jurisdiction. SeeFla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(A). McDonald's alleges that the sought-after discovery is protected as trade secrets, see§ 90.506, Fla. Stat. (2010) (), or is not relevant or necessary to the litigation. We grant the petitions.
This is a premises liability case. Jane Doe was an employee of J & I Management Company, Inc., a management company for a McDonald's franchisee, J.V. & Sons, Inc. Ms. Doe alleges that J & I and McDonald's are liable for an assault on Ms. Doe by another J & I employee. At its crux, Ms. Doe's theory is that McDonald's, as franchisor, had some duty to prevent the assault.
The alleged assault occurred at a McDonald's restaurant in Largo. McDonald's Restaurants of Florida owns the property on which the restaurant is located. In its answer to the complaint, it denied that it was a franchisor. It denied further that it had any contract with or control over the franchisee, J.V. & Sons, Inc. McDonald's Corporation is the franchisor of the restaurant and has a franchise contract with J.V. & Sons, Inc. McDonald's Corporation denied any involvement in the hiring, retention, or evaluation of J & I employees.
Ms. Doe seeks damages from McDonald's on theories of actual agency, apparent agency, and negligence. During discovery, she sought production of various manuals, including the operation and training manual referenced in the franchise agreement between McDonald's and J.V. & Sons, Inc., to prove that McDonald's controlled its franchisees.
The operation and training manual includes chapters on food safety and preparation, human resources, and security. The chapters potentially relevant to Ms. Doe's case, those on human resources and security, apply only to restaurants operated by McDonald's Corporation. Franchisees may develop and implement their own human resource and security policies. The franchise agreement specifically provides that franchisees are not authorized to act as McDonald's Corporation agents for any purpose. The franchisee retains control over the restaurant's day-to-day operations.
McDonald's Corporation produced portions of the operation and training manual. 2 The trial court denied Ms. Doe's motion for sanctions because McDonald's Corporation did not produce the entire manual. The trial court did find that the sought-after discovery contained trade secrets; however, it also ruled that the items were relevant to Ms. Doe's ability to prove negligence and apparent agency. The trial court denied McDonald's emergency motion for a protective order and directed that the sought-after discovery be made available, directing the parties to “enter into a confidentiality agreement.”
McDonald's argues that Ms. Doe's request for production should focus on issues of hiring and security. The order compelling production of all “subjects, items[,] and tools” is overbroad. As McDonald's aptly notes in their briefs, “Doe cannot show [that McDonald's was] responsible for a[n] ... assault just because it requires the [f]ranchisee to follow uniform procedures for troubleshooting the milkshake machine or preparing a hamburger.”
Ms. Doe argued that “each and every detail of control over the franchise through the operations and training manual and all of the subject[s], items [,] and tools contained therein are relevant and should be produced.” But, Ms. Doe's counsel conceded below that “[a] lot of the things are not necessary but I would want them for the trial to parade in front of the jury.”
“Certiorari review of a discovery order is appropriate ‘when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to a petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.’ ” Diaz–Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.3d 1007, 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995)). Disclosure of information, including material protected by privilege, trade secrets, or work product, can result in irreparable harm. Diaz–Verson, 54 So.3d at 1009. Relevance, however, is always the polestar. Id. Compelled disclosure through discovery must be limited to items necessary for a court to determine contested issues. Id.
We already observed that McDonald's Restaurants of Florida is the property owner and has no franchise agreement with J.V. & Sons, Inc. Nothing suggests that McDonald's Restaurants of Florida directs the franchisee or its management company on issues regarding hiring and security. Ms. Doe shows no relevance as to this petitioner; the order is a departure from the essential requirements of law as to this petitioner. See id.
As to McDonald's Corporation, the trial court ordered production of potential trade secrets information without conducting an in camera review of all the items which included DVDs and various other manuals. Apparently, the franchisee does not even possess some of these items. They, too, may not be relevant.
To the extent that the trial court ordered production of trade secrets documents that it failed to review in camera, the order compelling production departs from the essential requirements of law. See Summitbridge Nat'l Invs. LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, L.L.C., 67 So.3d 448, 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). There, we concluded that
the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering disclosure of the information without conducting an in camera review to determine whether the information is a trade secret and, if so, whether the borrowers have shown a reasonable necessity for the information and whether safeguards are required to prevent its unnecessary dissemination. The jurisdictional threshold for certiorari review is satisfied because “the disclosure of trade secrets creates the potential for irreparable harm.” Ameritrust Ins. Corp.[ v. O'Donnell Landscapes, Inc.], 899 So.2d [1205,] 1207 [...
To continue reading
Request your trial