Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantarbitrationmotiontrade secretleaseconfidentiality agreementcivil procedurerelevance

defendantmotionobjectionconfidentiality agreement

Related Cases

United States ex rel. Holmes v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 12166185

Facts

The defendants filed a motion for protective order concerning several documents that they claimed contained confidential business and proprietary information. These documents included cost performance reports, arbitration schedules, and ship program briefings, which were obtained under a confidentiality agreement. The defendants argued that disclosing this information could compromise their competitive advantage in the shipbuilding industry. The plaintiff, Holmes, countered that the documents revealed evidence of fraud and mismanagement and were irrelevant due to their age.

Defendants argue that Holmes obtained many of these documents pursuant to a confidentiality agreement and filed the documents as exhibits in the qui tam action in violation of the confidentiality provisions.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the documents in question should be protected from disclosure due to their confidential nature and the potential competitive harm that could arise from their release.

The Court rejects Holmes' assertion that the documents should be disclosed on the basis that they 'plainly and clearly show how Defendants perpetrated their fraud on the U.S. Government'.

Rule

The court applied Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for a protective order for 'a trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information.'

the Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated that there is competitive value to the information such that the documents should remain protected pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1).

Analysis

The court found that the defendants had established that the documents contained business confidential or proprietary information. Despite Holmes' claims that the documents were embarrassing and revealed fraud, the court noted that the defendants provided detailed explanations of the competitive value of the information. The court concluded that the age of the documents did not diminish their relevance in the competitive context of the shipbuilding industry.

Although Holmes presented declarations from purported experts disputing the competitive value of the information, Defendants' witnesses have countered each of the objections raised by Holmes and his experts.

Conclusion

The court granted the defendants' motion for protective order, sealing the specified documents and restricting access to case participants and court personnel. The court left open the possibility of unsealing the documents in the future as circumstances might justify.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' [109] Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the documents contained sensitive proprietary information that warranted protection from disclosure.

The Court finds that Defendants have established that the documents contain business confidential or proprietary information.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Herrmann v. Summer Plaza Corp., 201 Conn. 263, 513 A.2d 1211

Haeger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 813 F.3d 1233, 93 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1519, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1659

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123, 54 USLW 4194

Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, North Carolina, 453 U.S. 927, 102 S.Ct. 889 (Mem), 69 L.Ed.2d 1023