Case Name: Timothy J. RYAN, individually, and Farm Direct Supply, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Petitioners, v. AYCO FARMS, INC., a Florida corporation, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2015-09-09
Citations: 174 So. 3d 615
Docket Number: Nos. 4D15-1615, 4D15-1520
Parties: Timothy J. RYAN, individually, and Farm Direct Supply, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Petitioners, v. AYCO FARMS, INC., a Florida corporation, Respondent.
Judges: WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 174
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
Timothy J. RYAN, individually, and Farm Direct Supply, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Petitioners, v. AYCO FARMS, INC., a Florida corporation, Respondent.
Nos. 4D15-1615, 4D15-1520.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 9, 2015.
Christopher N. Bellows, Marilyn Holi-field, Pedro Gassant and Eric B. Hunt of Holland & Knight, LLP, Miami, for petitioners.
Bambi G. Blum and Cassandre D. An-glade of Bambi G. Blum, P.A., Miami, and Lance W. Shinder and Chelsea A. Embrey of Shinder Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, defendants below, seek cer-tiorari review of two non-final orders compelling discovery in an action to enforce the non-compete provisions of an employment agreement. The lawsuit was filed after the individual defendant, Timothy Ryan, terminated his employment with the plaintiff and went to work for the corporate defendant, allegedly a competitor. The agreement provided that if Ryan were to violate the non-compete provisions, then the plaintiff would be entitled to an accounting and repayment of the benefits accruing as a result of the violation. The amended complaint has two counts, seeking (1) injunctive relief and (2) an accounting. .
Both challenged orders compel discovery pertaining to the plaintiffs count for an accounting. The first order also compels defendants to produce customer lists, over their objection that the lists constitute a trade secret. Because the plaintiff has withdrawn its requests for the customer lists, this issue is moot.
We grant relief as to the discovery pertaining to the count for an accounting. That discovery is premature. The right to an accounting has not yet been established, as the issue of whether the non-compete provisions have been violated by the defendants has not yet been litigated. Picerne Dev. Corp. of Fla. v. Tasca & Rotelli, 635 So.2d 149, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Collier Anesthesia, P.A. v. Worden, 726 So.2d 342, 343 (Fla. 2d DCA. 1999); Drs. Weiland, Reiser, Jones, Shufflebarger, Cooper, P.A. v. Tindall, 372 So.2d 505, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979):
Petition granted in part.
WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
. Petitioners filed a separate petition for writ of certiorari challenging each order. We granted their motion to consolidate both petitions for all purposes.