ILNews

Court rules on discovery of trade secrets

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A tire making formula is considered a trade secret and doesn't have to be disclosed in discovery, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

The unanimous 11-page ruling comes in a much-anticipated first impression case of Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. v. Violet Mayberry, et al., No. 48A02-0504-CV-368, which stemmed from a fatal August 2001 accident in which a woman lost control of her vehicle on Interstate 69 after one of the tires came apart. Her family sued the tire maker; during discovery they asked for certain documents that included the skim stock formula to determine what contributed to the tire tread coming apart and, ultimately, Harmony B. Wigley's death.

Madison Superior Judge Thomas Newman ultimately issued a protective order compelling Bridgestone to disclose its skim stock formula, and the tire maker appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in August 2006, and the Supreme Court took the case earlier this year.

In accepting the case, justices considered how closely trade secrets should be guarded when it comes to discovery and whether certain information should be disclosed at all.

"We encounter here a question of first impression: how should an Indiana court analyze a request to protect a trade secret from pre-trial discovery?" Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote. "We conclude that the test prevailing in other jurisdictions is suitable for application under Indiana Trial Rule 26(C). In this case, the demanding party did not demonstrate the necessity of disclosing the secret."

The chief justice wrote that the application of Rule 26 to trade secrets should be informed by Indiana's adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which has been adopted in all but five states and provides a common legal framework for protecting trade secrets from misappropriation.

In turning to the UTSA, the court focuses on a three-part balancing test as the proper analysis for determining whether "good cause" has been shown to protect a trade secret.

Justices agree that happened here, that Bridgestone showed the formula was a trade secret, and the family didn't show why it was necessary. But the court also issued a word of caution:

"Of course, trade secrets may be valuable during the course of litigation not involving misappropriation claims, and there are moments when justice requires disclosure," Chief Justice Shepard wrote. "Still, courts must proceed with care when supervising the discovery of trade secrets, lest the judiciary be used to achieve misappropriation or mere leverage."

Today's ruling reverses the trial court's protective order directing disclosure of Bridgestone's skim stock formula and remands the case for further proceedings on the merits.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT