The 2023 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
After we issued our mandate in Rasier I , the trial court addressed Yellow Cab's pending motion for attorney's fees against Broward County pursuant to section 119.12, Florida Statutes (2016). The trial court denied the motion for two reasons. First, it found that by failing to cross-appeal in Rasier I , Yellow Cab waived the issue of whether Broward County unlawfully refused the records request. Second, relying on our decision in State Attorney's Office of Seventeenth Judicial Circuit v. Cable News Network, Inc. , 254 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), it found that Broward County's refusal to produce the unredacted reports could not be unlawful because it was based on the "trade secret" exemption contained in section 815.045, Florida Statutes (2016). This appeal follows.
At issue here is the legislatively created exemption to the public records law under section 815.045, Florida Statutes, which protects trade secrets from disclosure. Section 815.045, establishes that it is a public necessity that trade secrets "as defined in s. 812.081... be expressly made confidential and exempt from public records law..." Section 812.081(1)(c), Florida Statutes, defines "trade secret" as:
Appellee Michael Barfield submitted a public records request to the Department for the files related to appellants' applications. The Department declined to release to Mr. Barfield appellants' unredacted applications pursuant to section 815.045 but told him that he could retrieve the redacted versions of the applications on its website. Subsequently, Mr. Barfield filed suit for a declaratory judgment that the exemption asserted by the Department does not apply to the redacted portions of appellants' applications.
Florida has a broad public records policy providing "that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person." § 119.01(1), Fla. Stat. But the Legislature has exempted trade secrets from the public records law. See § 815.045, Fla. Stat. According to the statute, this is because "the public and private harm in disclosing trade secrets significantly outweighs any public benefit derived from disclosure, and the public's ability to scrutinize and monitor agency action is not diminished by nondisclosure of trade secrets." Id.
We have for review a final order declaring documents that Rodale, Inc., ("Rodale") produced — in compliance with investigatory subpoenas — to the Department of Legal Affairs, Office of the Attorney General ("AG") to be trade secrets, and therefore exempt from disclosure as public records, pursuant to section 815.045, Florida Statutes (2009), even though now in the AG's hands. Except as to the complaints Rodale's customers made and Rodale's responses to the complaints, we affirm.
Coventry's trade secrets are one component of the proprietary records that the company sought to protect from the retroactive application of the 2007 amendment. See § 812.081(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007) (defining "trade secret"). Under Florida law, trade secret information is "expressly made confidential and exempt from the public records law because it is a felony to disclose such records." § 815.045, Fla. Stat. (2007). In this same provision, the Legislature recognized that the public disclosure of trade secrets in the custody of a state agency would financially harm the business interests of the individuals or entities seeking to protect their own trade secrets and would discourage cooperation and disclosure by the individuals and entities dealing with the agency. "Because of the intangible nature of a trade secret, the extent of the property right therein is defined by the extent to which the owner of the secret protects his interest from disclosure to others." Ruckelshaus, 467 U.S. at 1002, 104 S.Ct. 2862. The trial court found Coventry had taken reasonable steps to ensure that its commercially sensitive work papers and other information were not disseminated to its…
We note that appellants raised for the first time in their reply brief the argument that the documents at issue were exempt from the Public Records Act under section 815.045, Florida Statutes. Had this argument been raised and rejected in the trial court, and had that rejection been made an issue in the initial brief, we would have been constrained by this court's recent decision in SePRO v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 839 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), review of which is currently being sought in the supreme court, to reverse the trial court's denial of injunctive relief.
What is now codified as section 815.045, Florida Statutes (2002), was originally codified as section 119.165, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), as part of the Public Records Law. While Section 815.045, Florida Statutes (2001), reads more like a statement of legislative intent than a conventionally phrased provision of positive law, it makes its intended effect clear, in providing:
. . . At issue here is the legislatively created exemption to the public records law under section 815.045, . . . Section 815.045, establishes that it is a public necessity that trade secrets "as defined in s. 812.081 . . .
. . . section 812.081, Florida Statutes (2015), and were exempt from disclosure as public records under section 815.045 . . . Barfield appellants’ unredacted applications pursuant to section 815.045 but told him that he could retrieve . . . See § 815.045, Fla. . . .
. . . See § 815.045, Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . ”) to be trade secrets, and therefore exempt from disclosure as public records, pursuant to section 815.045 . . . The legislatively created exemption at issue here is set out in section 815.045, Florida Statutes (2009 . . . to scrutinize and monitor agency action” concerning practices of which customers have complained. § 815.045 . . .
. . . .” § 815.045, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .
. . . brief the argument that the documents at issue were exempt from the Public Records Act under section 815.045 . . .
. . . The complaint invoked sections 403.111, 688.002, 812.081 and 815.045, Florida Statutes (2000). . . . exempt from the public disclosure mandate of § 119.07(1) pursuant to the exemptions in §§ 815.04(3) and 815.045 . . . What is now codified as section 815.045, Florida Statutes (2002), was originally codified as section . . . While Section 815.045, Florida Statutes (2001), reads more like a statement of legislative intent than . . .