Source: www.michiganemploymentlawadvisor.com
Fla. Stat. §119.07(1)(a) provides that "[e]very person who has custody of a public record shall permit the record to be inspected and copied by any person desiring to do so, at any reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public records." This same section also provides an exception for confidential business information.
Sepro Corp. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 839 So. 2d 781 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2003)
"the failure to identify information furnished to a state agency as putatively exempt from public disclosure effectively destroys any confidential character it might otherwise have enjoyed as a trade secret.". Id. at 783.
"The trade secret owner who fails to label a trade secret as such, or otherwise to specify in writing upon delivery to a state agency that information which it contends is confidential and exempt under the public records law is not to be disclosed, has not taken measures or made efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain the information's secrecy. As a practical--and therefore as a legal--matter, a conversation with a state employee is not enough to prevent the information's being made available to anybody who makes a public records request." Id. at 784.
Fla. Stat. §90.506, also known as the Florida Evidence Code provides for privilege with respect to trade secrets. The rule reads as follows:
"A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent other persons from disclosing, a trade secret owned by that person if the allowance of the privilege will not conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When the court directs disclosure, it shall take the protective measures that the interests of the holder of the privilege, the interests of the parties, and the furtherance of justice require. The privilege may be claimed by the person or the person’s agent or employee."
Becker Metals Corp. v. W. Fla. Scrap Metals, 407 So. 2d 380 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1981)
"... if disclosure is necessary, the statute requires that a court take protective measures to: (1) protect the interests of the holder of the privilege; (2) protect the interests of the parties; and (3) further the interests of justice." Id. at 382.
"... we find that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law that will result in a material injury that is irreparable on appeal ... the trial court shall first determine whether the documents constitute trade secrets. If so, the respondent must then show the reasonable necessity for the documents. If the court grants disclosure, it must take adequate measures to protect the interests of the petitioner, the parties, and justice. Id. at 1159.
Gaton v. Health Coalition, Inc., 774 So. 2d 59 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2000)
The court, citing Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1992), stated "that the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing oran in camera inspection to determine if a trade secret exists, and, if so, to determine the extent of protection necessary to safeguard the trade secret." Id. at 60.
