We recognize that discovery of irrelevant materials does not necessarily cause irreparable harm. See Vreeland, 973 So.2d at 671. Here, however, the orders are overbroad, void of solicitude for trade secrets, and lack a showing of need by Ms. Doe. Our concern is heightened by Ms. Doe’s apparent theory that a franchisor is a guarantor or insurer of every act of a franchisee or its management company. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla.1995) (explaining that franchisor creates “an agency relationship with a franchisee if, by contract or action or representation, the franchisor has directly or apparently participated in some substantial way in directing or managing acts of the franchisee”); Madison v. Hollywood Subs, Inc., 997 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>). “[I]t is the right of control, not actual
holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student holding that a district court must consider whether a foreign state so dominated the operations of the corporate entity that a principalagent relationship existed holding corporations president personally liable where he had ultimate control over businesss daytoday operations and was the corporate officer principally in charge of directing employment practices holding that where daytoday operations were within sole control of the franchisee no agency relationship existed with franchisor holding that one who exercises daytoday control over the employee will be considered as the employer