Rule 1.280.

General Provisions Governing Discovery

Trade Secrets. Florida courts follow a two-step procedure to determine whether a protective order should
be granted to prevent disclosure of trade secrets. First, the court must determine whether the materials
qualify as trade secrets. This may be done by an examination of the materials in camera. See Lovell
Farms, Inc. v. Levy, 641 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Second, the court must determine whether
the documents are “reasonably necessary” to prepare a claim or defense in the case. See Scientific
Games, Inc. v. Dittler Bros., Inc., 586 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that the information
sought was not reasonably necessary and thus, the discovery should have been denied). Other trade
secret cases include  Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. v. Total Health Choice, Inc., 770 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2000) (finding that the lower court erred in ordering production of contracts with third parties
without determining if they were trade secrets and, if so, whether they were reasonably necessary to
the requesting party); Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. Partnership v. Hasson, 33 So. 3d 148 (Fla.
4th DCA 2010) (holding that the court properly ordered disclosure of trade secrets but should have
allowed the parties time to negotiate a confidentiality agreement); Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d
1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (reversing an order compelling discovery and requiring the trial judge to
consider the customer lists in camera to determine whether they constituted protected trade secrets).

Financial Information. A motion for protective order may be used to prevent disclosure of irrelevant
financial information. See  Miller v. Schou, 616 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1993) (upholding the trial judge's
discretion to require disclosure of financial information);  Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri,
Holton & Douberley, P.A. v. Mullin, 602 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (determining that the trial
judge erred in denying a motion for protective order from the husband's law firm in a marital
dissolution proceeding where the requested discovery included documents that did not pertain to the
husband and were not likely to disclose his interest in the firm); Harley Hotels, Inc. v. Doe, 614 So. 2d
1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (noting that it is proper to file a motion for protective order to limit
disclosure of financial information).

Undue Burden. A party may seek a protective order to prevent compliance with a discovery request that
is burdensome. See Ferrandino v. Riley, 236 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). In Fortune Ins. Co. v.
Santelli, 621 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the court held that the defendant was not required to
produce its corporate representative in Dade County for deposition since the corporate headquarters
were in Duval County. The court cited the part of Rule 1.280(c) that authorizes the court to grant a
protective order if the discovery would be an undue burden or expense.