04-3256 GOODYEAR V. JONES

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Third District Court of Appeal » 2005 » 04-3256 GOODYEAR V. JONES

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 3d04-3256

Case Date: 12/14/2005

Plaintiff: 04-3256 GOODYEAR

Defendant: JONES

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2005

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Appellant, vs. RONNIE JONES AND SYLVIA JONES, Appellees.

** ** ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 97-2671 CASE NO. 3D04-3256

** Opinion filed December 14, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Thornton, Davis & Fein, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Frederick J. Fein, for appellant. Lauri Waldman Ross; Gonzalez & Walsh and Lisa Walsh, for appellees.

Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, Judge. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) appeals an order vacating a confidentiality order, and the denial of its motion

requesting

an

in-camera

inspection

of

documents

previously

covered by the confidentiality order.

Additionally, Goodyear

asks this court to declare the Sunshine in Litigation Act ("Act" or "Sunshine in Litigation Act") unconstitutional. We affirm.

The case arose out of an explosion of a Goodyear Unisteel tire, which injured the plaintiff, Ronnie Jones. During the

course of litigation, Goodyear objected to production requests made by the plaintiffs, arguing that the requests were

overbroad, burdensome and vague, and not limited in scope to tires substantially similar to the one involved in the lawsuit. A special master was appointed to decide the issue. The special

master conducted three hearings and ultimately determined that Goodyear should be required to produce the requested documents. After being required to produce the documents, Goodyear

sought to have a confidentiality order entered to prohibit the plaintiffs from disclosing to others the documents obtained

during discovery. trade secrets.

Goodyear asserted that the documents were

The parties' attorneys communicated through a

number of letters concerning the propriety of a confidentiality order and its potential content. plaintiffs' attorney sent a On September 7, 1999, the to Goodyear's attorney

letter

stating that he was not convinced that the documents in question were in fact trade secrets, and suggested that Goodyear file the documents with the special master for a determination of whether

2

they were entitled to trade secret protection. do so.

Goodyear did not

Thereafter, the plaintiffs objected to Goodyear's motion

for a confidentiality order, arguing that the documents were not trade secrets and not subject to a confidentiality order as the documents concerned a public hazard (Goodyear Unisteel tires), thereby prohibiting concealment by court order under the

Sunshine in Litigation Act. The trial court, however, held that a determination that the tires constituted a public hazard was premature; indicated that if the plaintiffs prevailed in the action, the court would permit the documents to be made public under the Sunshine in Litigation Act; and granted the confidentiality order,

prohibiting disclosure of the documents in question to anyone not involved in the litigation. The case was ultimately tried, resulting in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. directed verdict and The trial court, however, entered a a new trial. On appeal, the

granted

plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in directing the verdict and requested this court to reinstate the jury's verdict and to vacate the confidentiality order issued by the trial court. This court agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered that

the jury's verdict be reinstated and that the confidentiality order be vacated pursuant to the Sunshine in Litigation Act. Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 871 So. 2d 899, 906 (Fla.

3

3d

DCA

2003).

Specifically,

we

stated

"we

remand

with

the

additional instruction that the pre-trial confidentiality order be vacated." On Id. Goodyear the sought a hearing by and an in-camera

remand, of

inspection order.

documents

covered

the

confidentiality

Goodyear asserted that the Sunshine in Litigation Act

does not require the documents to be made public as (1) the documents are trade secrets; and (2) they do not pertain to the make and model of tire is at not issue in the Jones's the suit and, in

therefore,

disclosure

required

under

Sunshine

Litigation Act. constitutionality that

Alternatively, Goodyear sought a hearing on the of of the Sunshine Act in to Litigation require Act, arguing of

application

the

disclosure

confidential trade secret documents without an in-camera hearing would violate its due process rights. The trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction to

conduct an in-camera inspection or to set a hearing on whether the Act is constitutional. Therefore, it denied the defendant's

motion to conduct an in-camera inspection or to hold a hearing on the constitutionality of the Act, vacated the confidentiality order, and stayed the vacation of the order pending appellate review. This appeal follows.

Subsection (3) of The Sunshine in Litigation Act provides:

4

Except pursuant to this section, no court shall enter an order or judgment which has the purpose or effect of concealing a public hazard or any information concerning a public hazard, nor shall the court enter an order or judgment which has the purpose or effect of concealing any information which may be useful to members of the public in protecting themselves from injury which may result from the public hazard.

Download 3d04-3256.pdf