Insurance
— 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.)

* *
*