Tag: Proprietary Information

1
Healthedge Software, Inc. v. Sharp Health Plan (D. Mass. 2021)
2
In re Valsartan N-Nitrosodimethylamine, Losartan, & Irbesartan Prod. Liab. Litig. (D.N.J. 2021)
3
Oppenheimer v. Episcopal Communicators, Inc. (W.D. N.C. 2020)

Healthedge Software, Inc. v. Sharp Health Plan (D. Mass. 2021)

Key Insight:

Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to produce documents, including source code, and Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant to disclose how it collected and searched its electronically stored information (ESI). The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion while partially granting Defendant’s Motion.

A significant issue in both Motions was the respective parties’ collection of ESI. The Court noted that the parties failed “to engage in cooperative planning regarding ESI”, and directed the parties to confer regarding custodians and search terms of ESI collection and review. In partially granting Defendant’s Motion, the Court directed Plaintiff to further articulate its objections, but stated that some of Defendant’s discovery requests were premature even if Plaintiff was obligated to respond to them by the close of discovery.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Documents, Source Code

Case Summary

In re Valsartan N-Nitrosodimethylamine, Losartan, & Irbesartan Prod. Liab. Litig. (D.N.J. 2021)

Key Insight: Defendant claimed that information sought by Plaintiff was discoverable. Plaintiff objected on the basis of confidentiality, and the Court struck Defendant’s confidentiality designations. Specifically, the Court rejected Defendant’s claims that the emails sought contained trade secret and proprietary information, and had the potential to cause it competitive harm. The Court ordered Defendant to use the it’s ruling as an example for dealing with similarly designated documents.

Nature of Case: Diversity, Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Case Summary

Oppenheimer v. Episcopal Communicators, Inc. (W.D. N.C. 2020)

Key Insight: The litigation was over Defendant’s purported copyright infringement due to Defendant’s publishing of a copyrighted photograph on its website. Defendant served its first discovery requests on Plaintiff; Plaintiff provided an untimely response with a number of objections including attorney-client privilege (without a privilege log), and “boilerplate objections”. Defendant filed a Motion to Compel, which was granted. Plaintiff provided a supplemental response, however, Defendant filed an additional Motion to Compel, and also sought attorney’s fees for the Motion. Besides privilege, at issue was Plaintiff’s objection to the proportionality of Defendant’s discovery requests.

The Court did not find Plaintiff’s “boilerplate objections”, including proportionality, persuasive. And found that they lack specificity and/or merit. Plaintiff’s objection(s) of confidentiality on the grounds of settlement, proprietary business information was rejected. Similarly, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s privilege objection(s) due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide a privilege log.

In summary, the Court found that Plaintiff’s assertion of boilerplate objections (and failure to provide a privilege log) consisted of grounds overruling all of his objections. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel, and similarly, ordered Defendant to provide it an estimate of the attorney’s fees spent on the Motion (for the purpose of awarding Defendant attorney’s fees).

Nature of Case: Intellectual Property, Copyright Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Digital Photograph

Case Summary

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.