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. 1 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 Because the plaintiff has withdrawn its requests for the customer lists, this issue is moot.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. *616 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.