Advanced Pool Services, Inc. v. Miele

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Advanced Pool Services, Inc. v. Miele

77 So. 3d 919, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 986, 2012 WL 204485

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 2012

DocketNo. 4D11-3814

StatusPublished

This text of 77 So. 3d 919 (Advanced Pool Services, Inc. v. Miele) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Advanced Pool Services, Inc. v. Miele, 77 So. 3d 919, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 986, 2012 WL 204485 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek certiorari review of a discovery order on the ground that they have been ordered to produce trade secrets and confidential business information. We grant the petition because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering the production without first conducting the requisite in camera inspection or evidentiary hearing, resulting in irreparable harm. See Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, L.L.C., 67 So.3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Docutek Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Copyco, Inc., 869 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Premiere Lab Supply, Inc. v. Chemplex Indus., Inc., 791 So.2d 1190, 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So.2d 1206, 1208-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the circuit court’s order.

STEVENSON, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek certiorari review of a discovery order on the ground that they have been ordered to produce trade secrets and confidential business information. We grant the petition because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering the production without first conducting the requisite in camera inspection or evidentiary hearing, resulting in irreparable harm. See Summitbridge Nat’l Invs. LLC v. 1221 Palm Harbor, L.L.C., 67 So.3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Docutek Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Copyco, Inc., 869 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Premiere Lab Supply, Inc. v. Chemplex Indus., Inc., 791 So.2d 1190, 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So.2d 1206, 1208-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the circuit court’s order.

STEVENSON, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 3d 919, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 986, 2012 WL 204485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/advanced-pool-services-inc-v-miele-fladistctapp-2012.