3/24/2008 Conn. L. Trib. 268

A stipulated protective order was modified allowing a plaintiff, disclosed as an expert and seen as a potential competitor of the defendant motorcycle manufacturer, to view the defendant's confidential materials and trade secret information with conditions. Charles Wendt filed a product liability claim against Spyke, Inc. alleging that a motorcycle he was operating failed as a result of defective parts manufactured by Spyke. Following a discovery dispute, the parties entered into a 15 page protective order covering the disclosure of Spyke's confidential or trade secret information. Under the agreement, plaintiff's counsel is precluded from giving the materials to Charles Wendt. The protective order creates a mechanism for modifications. Pursuant to this provision, the plaintiff filed a motion to modify the order. The plaintiff claimed that the parties and their declared experts performed an inspection of the motorcycle at issue and at that inspection the plaintiff became aware that the defendant was asserting that the motorcycle parts had been improperly installed. The plaintiff then was disclosed as the assembler of the motorcycle and as an expert witness. He has built eight motorcycles and is described as having practical experience in the fields of design and manufacturing and crafts motorcycle wheels in his tool and die shop. The plaintiffs claimed that there was good cause to allow him to review the confidential materials. The defendant objected arguing that it was an end run around the express terms of the protective order and that the court was without authority to modify that order. The court found it had inherent authority to supervise discovery and the family law cases dealing with separation agreements cited by the defendant were not persuasive authority in this discovery context. The defendant's position was undercut further by the language of the protective order which creates a mechanism for bringing dispute before the court. The court found good cause for the requested modification. Recognizing that the defendant viewed the plaintiff as a potential competitor, the order was modified to allow the plaintiff to examine the confidential materials only in the offices of his attorney. The plaintiff is to acknowledge under oath that he has read and understood the terms of the protective order and that he understands that he is subject to court sanctions if he violates the same.
Wendt v. Spyke, Inc. New Haven J.D., at New Haven (Doc. No. CV 04-4000280S)
Cosgrove, J. . March 4, 2008 . 6 pages . Full text available at
www.ctlawtribune.com