Preview
Filing # 134810077 E-Filed 09/17/2021 01:45:38 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AE
CASE NO.: 50-2020-CA-00747 1-XXXX-MB
VCAUNITED LLC,
Plaintiff/Petitioner
vs.
MELISSA L HANSLER,
INTEGRATED VASCULAR IMAGING LLC,
Defendant/Respondents.
Aen corona Arn pyri TA ono arcornnie neNANnT
URW EIS DUD LALNING, UN FAR, DAUBLIIUIND LU OFEUIAL MAD IETS RErURI,
AND DIRECTING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
THIS MATTER came before the Court for hearing on September 3, 2021 at 10:30 a.m.
on the Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s June 24, 2021 Order filed by the Defendants,
MELISSA HANSLER (“Melissa”) and INTEGRATED VASCULAR IMAGING, LLC (IVI)
(collectively “Defendants”). The Court has considered the Motion, the applicable portions of the
Court file, and the arguments of counsel. Based on the foregoing, the Court rules as follows:
1. The issues before the Court relate to Plaintiff's September 9, 2020 Request for
Production, and the Defendants’ objections thereto. In sum, the Defendants object to producing
various business records and communications on the basis that said records constitute “trade
secrets”, and further that Plaintiff has established no “reasonable need” for discovery of this
information.
2. This Court, by Order dated June 24, 2021, originally sustained Plaintiffs
exceptions to the Special Master Report filed with respect to this discovery, and directed the
production of all materials withheld to that point by the Defendants. However, upon further
tat A a tat tat ea A ANd nw.
considerauon, ine UOourt entered 1s order granung reconsiderauion O1 wie yune 24, 2UZ1 UTder,
CHEN. DAIAARCACUAAIINTY Cl INGEDU ARDIIV7ZN FLED naln7innns 4-45-29 DNA
Pn. PAL DLA VUUINE TT, FL, JUOL IE mDnueey, ULUIAN, Yorieue! Ulty.uu citadopting Plaintiff’s suggestion that, in the interest of judicial economy, the records in question be
accorded “trade secret” status, and leaving for further consideration the issues of “reasonable
necessity” and “adequate protection”, which Plaintiff was required to establish before discovery
of trade secrets could be compelled.
3. At the hearing on September 3, 2021, following a discussion amongst counsel and
the Court, Plaintiff's counsel advised that he was willing to narrow the scope of requested
documents into two simple categories, as follows: a) the Defendants’ financial records which
might have a bearing on the Plaintiffs lost profits claims, from June 1, 2019; and b)
correspondence and communications between Melissa and any third party, other than her
attorneys, regarding the Plaintiff, James Hansler, and/or IVI, or any plan to start a new imaging
business, dating from April 1, 2019 through December 1, 2019.
4, With respect to the financial records, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has
established a reasonable necessity for discovery of same. Plaintiffs claims request damages from
the Defendants based on allegations that the Defendants have, in general terms, realized profits
that should have belonged to the Plaintiff, and have misappropriated corporate opportunities that
should have benefitied the Piatniift. The Defendants financiai records are undoubtedly relevant in
this context, and constitute the sole source of the requisite information. Thus, despite the “trade
secret” categorization of these records, Defendants shall produce the documents specified in
paragraph 6 of this Order to Plaintiffs counsel within ten (10) days from the date of this Order.
Financial records pertaining to calendar year 2021 that is not yet in existence will be supplied
within thirty (30) days of receipt.
5. Furthermore, the Court finds that the Defendants’ interest in maintaining
sanfidantiality urith racnant ta this infarmation jc adannataly neatanted hey this Caurt?o Rahrnardy 1
COMmuGehuaitly Wiul respect w tiie luGiiiauol 1s Gucquatcry prowcwwe Oy Uls VOuLt Sa CUlualy 152021 Confidentiality Order Governing Disclosure of Discovery, which essentially limits the initial
review of all documents produced pursuant to this Order to Plaintiff’s counsel’s eyes only, subject
to further disclosure only with the Defendants’ agreement or an order of this Court.
6. The financial records to be produced shall include the following (all described
records shall be provided for the period beginning June 1, 2019, though the present date, unless
otherwise indicated. The Defendants shall have a continuing obligation to supplement this
production on a monthly basis, as responsive documents become available, up until the
commencement of the trial of this cause):
a) Melissa’s and IVI’s Federal Income Tax Returns for the years 2019, 2020, and, when
available, 2021.
b) Quarterly and annual payroll tax return for IVI.
c) IVI’s monthly balance sheets.
d) IVI’s monthly profit & loss statements.
e) IVI’s general ledger.
f) IVI’s cash receipts and disbursement journals.
g) IVI’s accounts payable and receivable journals.
h) IVI’s payroll journals and time records.
i) IVI’s bank statements, bank reconciliations, cancelled checks and deposit slips.
j) IVI’s and, to the extent related to investment in IVI, Melissa’s loan applications and
loan agreements.
k) IVI invoices received from vendors.
1) IVI equipment lease and/or purchase records, including contracts, invoices, and
financing records.
7. With respect to the second category of documents, the correspondence and
communications, within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, the Defendants shall gatherall responsive communications and correspondence and provide them to the Court for in camera
review. The purpose of the Court’s review is to ensure that no irrelevant, private information is
provided to the Plaintiff. Beyond this, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has established a
reasonable necessity for this information, and has established that the existing February 1, 2021
Confidentiality Order is more than sufficient to protect the Defendants’ interest in maintaining the
privacy of actual trade secret information.
8. Following the Court’s review of the communications and correspondence provided,
the Court shall direct the Defendants as to which items shall be produced to the Plaintiff's attorney,
and which may be withheld, along with a rationale for the withholding of documents not disclosed
to the Plaintiff. The Court will endeavor to address this matter as expeditiously as possible, but if
the parties have not heard from the Court within 30 days of the submission of the documents by
the Defendants, then either party is free to file a motion for status conference to facilitate an update
on the status of the Court’s review.
DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida.
Aeon
ue ao
924,
nl
in -County Judae
Ee courr
502020CA007471XXXXMB 09/17/2021
Ashley Zuckerman
County Judge
HON. ASHLEY ZUCKERMAN, DIV AEName Address Email
noe DAA DT UT
£92) FUA DLVU 7
DAVID K. STE 204 PALM Te eeaeseanreaeee ee TRM.COM;
MARKARIAN BEACH GARDENS, “2Ve@/ordusinessanalite.com;
service@forbusinessandlife.com
FL 33131
2925 PGA BLVD
DAVID K. SUITE 204 PALM
MARKARIAN BEACH GARDENS, DAVE@BUSINESSMINDEDLA WFIRM.COM
FL 334i0
cna davidg@forbusinessandlife.com
712 US HIGHWAY
JAMES S. ONE SUITE 400 JST@FCOHENLAW.COM;
TELEPMAN NORTH PALM jst@cohennorris.com; smc@cohennorris.com
BEACH, FL 33408
3399 PGA
BOULEVARD 7
THOMAS J. ALI SUITE 150 PAL eee eee nner OMe ooal
BEACH GARDENS, thailey@stua planpa.com; tali@jla.legal
FL 33410
Jeffrey Colbath,
Ott Nr
Special iviasver
jeff@colbathmediation.com
Preview
Filing # 134810077 E-Filed 09/17/2021 01:45:38 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION: AE CASE NO.: 50-2020-CA-00747 1-XXXX-MB VCAUNITED LLC, Plaintiff/Petitioner vs. MELISSA L HANSLER, INTEGRATED VASCULAR IMAGING LLC, Defendant/Respondents. Aen corona Arn pyri TA ono arcornnie neNANnT URW EIS DUD LALNING, UN FAR, DAUBLIIUIND LU OFEUIAL MAD IETS RErURI, AND DIRECTING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THIS MATTER came before the Court for hearing on September 3, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. on the Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s June 24, 2021 Order filed by the Defendants, MELISSA HANSLER (“Melissa”) and INTEGRATED VASCULAR IMAGING, LLC (IVI) (collectively “Defendants”). The Court has considered the Motion, the applicable portions of the Court file, and the arguments of counsel. Based on the foregoing, the Court rules as follows: 1. The issues before the Court relate to Plaintiff's September 9, 2020 Request for Production, and the Defendants’ objections thereto. In sum, the Defendants object to producing various business records and communications on the basis that said records constitute “trade secrets”, and further that Plaintiff has established no “reasonable need” for discovery of this information. 2. This Court, by Order dated June 24, 2021, originally sustained Plaintiffs exceptions to the Special Master Report filed with respect to this discovery, and directed the production of all materials withheld to that point by the Defendants. However, upon further tat A a tat tat ea A ANd nw. considerauon, ine UOourt entered 1s order granung reconsiderauion O1 wie yune 24, 2UZ1 UTder, CHEN. DAIAARCACUAAIINTY Cl INGEDU ARDIIV7ZN FLED naln7innns 4-45-29 DNA Pn. PAL DLA VUUINE TT, FL, JUOL IE mDnueey, ULUIAN, Yorieue! Ulty.uu citadopting Plaintiff’s suggestion that, in the interest of judicial economy, the records in question be accorded “trade secret” status, and leaving for further consideration the issues of “reasonable necessity” and “adequate protection”, which Plaintiff was required to establish before discovery of trade secrets could be compelled. 3. At the hearing on September 3, 2021, following a discussion amongst counsel and the Court, Plaintiff's counsel advised that he was willing to narrow the scope of requested documents into two simple categories, as follows: a) the Defendants’ financial records which might have a bearing on the Plaintiffs lost profits claims, from June 1, 2019; and b) correspondence and communications between Melissa and any third party, other than her attorneys, regarding the Plaintiff, James Hansler, and/or IVI, or any plan to start a new imaging business, dating from April 1, 2019 through December 1, 2019. 4, With respect to the financial records, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has established a reasonable necessity for discovery of same. Plaintiffs claims request damages from the Defendants based on allegations that the Defendants have, in general terms, realized profits that should have belonged to the Plaintiff, and have misappropriated corporate opportunities that should have benefitied the Piatniift. The Defendants financiai records are undoubtedly relevant in this context, and constitute the sole source of the requisite information. Thus, despite the “trade secret” categorization of these records, Defendants shall produce the documents specified in paragraph 6 of this Order to Plaintiffs counsel within ten (10) days from the date of this Order. Financial records pertaining to calendar year 2021 that is not yet in existence will be supplied within thirty (30) days of receipt. 5. Furthermore, the Court finds that the Defendants’ interest in maintaining sanfidantiality urith racnant ta this infarmation jc adannataly neatanted hey this Caurt?o Rahrnardy 1 COMmuGehuaitly Wiul respect w tiie luGiiiauol 1s Gucquatcry prowcwwe Oy Uls VOuLt Sa CUlualy 152021 Confidentiality Order Governing Disclosure of Discovery, which essentially limits the initial review of all documents produced pursuant to this Order to Plaintiff’s counsel’s eyes only, subject to further disclosure only with the Defendants’ agreement or an order of this Court. 6. The financial records to be produced shall include the following (all described records shall be provided for the period beginning June 1, 2019, though the present date, unless otherwise indicated. The Defendants shall have a continuing obligation to supplement this production on a monthly basis, as responsive documents become available, up until the commencement of the trial of this cause): a) Melissa’s and IVI’s Federal Income Tax Returns for the years 2019, 2020, and, when available, 2021. b) Quarterly and annual payroll tax return for IVI. c) IVI’s monthly balance sheets. d) IVI’s monthly profit & loss statements. e) IVI’s general ledger. f) IVI’s cash receipts and disbursement journals. g) IVI’s accounts payable and receivable journals. h) IVI’s payroll journals and time records. i) IVI’s bank statements, bank reconciliations, cancelled checks and deposit slips. j) IVI’s and, to the extent related to investment in IVI, Melissa’s loan applications and loan agreements. k) IVI invoices received from vendors. 1) IVI equipment lease and/or purchase records, including contracts, invoices, and financing records. 7. With respect to the second category of documents, the correspondence and communications, within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, the Defendants shall gatherall responsive communications and correspondence and provide them to the Court for in camera review. The purpose of the Court’s review is to ensure that no irrelevant, private information is provided to the Plaintiff. Beyond this, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has established a reasonable necessity for this information, and has established that the existing February 1, 2021 Confidentiality Order is more than sufficient to protect the Defendants’ interest in maintaining the privacy of actual trade secret information. 8. Following the Court’s review of the communications and correspondence provided, the Court shall direct the Defendants as to which items shall be produced to the Plaintiff's attorney, and which may be withheld, along with a rationale for the withholding of documents not disclosed to the Plaintiff. The Court will endeavor to address this matter as expeditiously as possible, but if the parties have not heard from the Court within 30 days of the submission of the documents by the Defendants, then either party is free to file a motion for status conference to facilitate an update on the status of the Court’s review. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Aeon ue ao 924, nl in -County Judae Ee courr 502020CA007471XXXXMB 09/17/2021 Ashley Zuckerman County Judge HON. ASHLEY ZUCKERMAN, DIV AEName Address Email noe DAA DT UT £92) FUA DLVU 7 DAVID K. STE 204 PALM Te eeaeseanreaeee ee TRM.COM; MARKARIAN BEACH GARDENS, “2Ve@/ordusinessanalite.com; service@forbusinessandlife.com FL 33131 2925 PGA BLVD DAVID K. SUITE 204 PALM MARKARIAN BEACH GARDENS, DAVE@BUSINESSMINDEDLA WFIRM.COM FL 334i0 cna davidg@forbusinessandlife.com 712 US HIGHWAY JAMES S. ONE SUITE 400 JST@FCOHENLAW.COM; TELEPMAN NORTH PALM jst@cohennorris.com; smc@cohennorris.com BEACH, FL 33408 3399 PGA BOULEVARD 7 THOMAS J. ALI SUITE 150 PAL eee eee nner OMe ooal BEACH GARDENS, thailey@stua planpa.com; tali@jla.legal FL 33410 Jeffrey Colbath, Ott Nr Special iviasver jeff@colbathmediation.com