FindLaw | Legal News & Information

Fla. Appeals Court Upholds 'Sunshine in Litigation' Law

Florida's Sunshine in Litigation Act — which prohibits court orders that conceal a public hazard — is constitutional because it is "rationally related to a reasonable government objective," a state appeals court has ruled.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the defendant in a defective-tire suit, had challenged the statute and sought to keep certain documents sealed because they allegedly contained trade secrets.

Plaintiff Ronnie Jones claimed he was injured when a Goodyear Unisteel tire exploded. He filed suit in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, which ordered Goodyear to produce the documents during discovery.

The tire maker convinced the trial court to enter a confidentiality order prohibiting disclosure to anyone not involved in the litigation. The court entered the blanket confidentiality order without determining if the tires were a public hazard, as the plaintiff claimed, or whether any exception to the Sunshine Act applied.

The court eventually ruled in Jones' favor and vacated the confidentiality order.

On appeal Goodyear asserted that the Sunshine Act did not require the documents to be made public because they contained trade secrets, and did not pertain to the make and model tire at issue in the Jones action.

The tire maker also claimed the act itself was unconstitutional, arguing that disclosure of trade secrets without an in camera hearing would violate its due-process rights.

Affirming, the Florida 3d District Court of Appeal said the judge erred by issuing the order without conducting a hearing "to determine which documents related to the claimed public hazard and if any of the documents related to a trade secret."

Nor did the company address, prior to the appeal, whether the documents contained trade secrets, whether they were related to the tire in question, or whether disclosure was necessary or useful to the public, the appeals court said.

The panel said Goodyear benefited from the lower court's error for five years and cannot seek to remedy it now.

"The goal of protecting the public from hazards can only be accomplished by disallowing confidentiality orders which protect information related to the hazard after a verdict and judgment have been entered against the manufacturer of a hazardous product," the panel stated regarding the act's constitutionality.