Case Name: DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., Petitioner, v. D & A ACCOUNTING AND CONSULTING CORPORATION, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-09-10
Citations: 698 So. 2d 935
Docket Number: No. 97-1217
Parties: DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., Petitioner, v. D & A ACCOUNTING AND CONSULTING CORPORATION, Respondent.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 698
Pages: 935–935

Head Matter:
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., Petitioner, v. D & A ACCOUNTING AND CONSULTING CORPORATION, Respondent.
No. 97-1217.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 10, 1997.
Peter J. Aldrich of Kelley and Glenn D. Kelley of Kelley, Aldrich & Warren, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Petitioner.
Thomas D. DeCarlo of Thomas D. DeCar-lo, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We treat the petition for certiorari as a notice of appeal from a final order in a bill of discovery.
It was incumbent upon the trial court to determine if the trade secret privilege exists, and whether the questions asked and objected to even invaded that privilege. See Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Eddings, 673 So.2d 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
It was not necessary for appellant to sue for damages prior to assertion of the bill for discovery. See Adventist Health Sys. Sunbelt, Inc. v. Hegwood, 569 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction to proceed in accordance herewith.
GLICKSTEIN, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.