MCARDLE v. CITY OF OCALA FL (2020)

Order

The Salvation Army Center of Hope (“Salvation Army”) seeks a protective order in this action to keep its internal manual confidential as a protected trade secret. (Doc. 46). On February 21, 2020, Plaintiffs issued a subpoena duces tecum to Salvation Army to produce documents that include requests for policies and procedures related to eligibility, prioritization, and exclusion of homeless individuals from emergency shelter services provided by that organization. Salvation Army contends that its policies and procedures are contained in its manual “which was prepared in order to provide its staff with information regarding how the Salvation Army Center of Hope is governed and runs its programs,” and that it reflects its “internal process.” Salvation Army does not object to producing the manual, but it asks the Court to enter a confidentiality order that requires the parties (including Defendant City of Ocala, a public records custodian under Florida law) to maintain the manual as confidential and restricts how it can be used in the litigation.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1)(G), Fed. R. Civ. P. a court may issue a protective order, for good cause shown, “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including․requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” However, “[g]eneralized concerns, conclusory statements, or unsupported contentions are insufficient reasons for entry of a protective order.” Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC v. Leisure Getaways, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-501-Orl-31GJK, 2017 WL 10059023, *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2017). The moving party must demonstrate good cause with evidentiary support “that each responsive document that is withheld is truly confidential and a specific harm would result from its disclosure or loss of confidentiality.” Id.

Salvation Army has failed to meet its burden to show that the information contained in the manual is truly confidential and that specific harm would result from its disclosure. Likewise, Salvation Army has failed to demonstrate any of the necessary criteria to show that the manual constitutes protected trade secrets—i.e., that Salvation Army consistently treated the information as closely guarded secrets, that the information represents substantial value to Salvation Army, that it would be valuable to competitors, and that it derives its value by virtue of the effort of its creation and lack of dissemination. See Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2001). Indeed, other than vague assertions at the hearing that disclosure of the information could somehow impact charitable donations made to Salvation Army, it is unclear how the information in the manual would be valuable to competitors, or how its disclosure would harm Salvation Army. Moreover, there is no record evidence suggesting that Salvation Army's policies regarding eligibility, prioritization, and exclusion of homeless individuals from emergency shelter services are closely guarded secrets.

Accordingly, Salvation Army's motion for protective order (Doc. 46) is due to be DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on May 29, 2020.

PHILIP R. LAMMENS, United States Magistrate Judge