23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 394a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2305DTORInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Medical provider — Trade secrets — Insurer is entitled to discover reimbursement rates accepted by medical provider as reimbursement from other insurance carriers and identity of those carriers — Although trial court reached implicit conclusion that information sought was not protected by trade secret privilege or that reasonable necessity justifying disclosure outweighed provider’s interest in maintaining confidentiality of trade secrets, particularized findings are required — Discovery order is quashed, and case is remanded for further findings
VIRTUAL IMAGING SERVICES, INC., A/A/O DUNIA TORRES, Appellant, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 14-109 AP. L.T. Case No. 2012-23249 SP 23. September 16, 2015. An appeal from the Honorable Carlos Guzman, County Court for Miami-Dade County. Counsel: Joseph Littman, for Appellant. Michael Neimand, for Appellee.
(Before MILLER B., RODRIGUEZ R., and RUIZ-COHEN, JJ.)
(MILLER, Judge.) Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. (“Virtual”) seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order overruling objections to three interrogatories wherein United Auto sought the disclosure of reimbursement rates accepted by Virtual from other insurance providers and the identity of such providers. Virtual contends that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring the production of information without making findings that a reasonable necessity outweighs Virtual’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of trade secrets.
A party seeking review of a pretrial discovery order must show that the trial court’s order departed from the essential requirements of law and caused “material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.” Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1987). “Orders improperly requiring the disclosure of trade secrets, even providing for confidentiality limitations, are subject to certiorari review.” Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cabrera, 112 So. 3d 731, 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D1012a], citing Grooms v. Distinctive Cabinet Designs, Inc., 846 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D1299a]. The disclosure of trade secrets creates the potential for irreparable harm. See Salick Health Care, Inc. v. Spunberg, 722 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D113a]; Rare Coin-It, Inc. v. I.J.E., Inc., 625 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
The trial court properly determined that the reimbursement rates accepted by the petitioner from other insurance providers are relevant in the context of litigation over the reasonableness of the charges. See Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. Partnership v. Hasson, 33 So. 3d 148, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D551a] (“We conclude that Defendants sufficiently explained below why they needed the information: in order to dispute, as unreasonable, the amount of medical expenses that the plaintiff will seek to recover from them, if the hospital charges non-litigation patients a lower fee for the same medical services.”); § 627.736(5)(a), Florida Statutes (“In determining whether a charge for a particular service, treatment, or otherwise is reasonable, consideration may be given to evidence of usual and customary charges and payments accepted by the provider involved in the dispute, reimbursement levels in the community and various federal and state medical fee schedules applicable to motor vehicle and other insurance coverages, and other information relevant to the reasonableness of the reimbursement for the service, treatment, or supply.”).
However, although the trial court reached the implicit conclusion that either the information subject to disclosure was not protected by the trade secret privilege, or a reasonable necessity justifying disclosure of the documents outweighed Virtual’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the trade secrets, particularized findings within the body of the order were required. See Laser Spine Institute, LLC v. Greer, 144 So. 3d 633, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1671a] (holding that the trial court’s implicit conclusion that appellee demonstrated a reasonable necessity for the disclosure of documents was insufficient); Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So. 2d 507, 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D1400b] (“Because the order under review makes no specific findings as to why it deemed the requested information not to be protected by the trade secret privilege we find that ‘it departs from the essential requirements of the law for which no adequate remedy may be afforded to petitioners on final review.’”) (quoting Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D1202a]).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the order is quashed, and the case is remanded for entry of further findings. (RODRIGUEZ and RUIZ-COHEN, JJ., CONCUR.)