Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The District Court for the Northern District of New York has ruled that where an attorney serves as both co-counsel for a corporate defendant and as a member of the entity's board of directors, they must be restricted in their access to plaintiff's documents because of the 'serious risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential documents and information.' Norbrook Laboratories Limited v. G.C. Hanford Manufacturing Co., No. 5:03-CV-165 (April 24).
The discovery issue before the court was whether the defendant's co-counsel, who also serves as corporate counsel and a member of the board of directors, should have access to the plaintiff's confidential documents and information. The attorney in question filled a number of roles, but did not serve specifically as in-house counsel. Rather, he was retained separately to work on this case in addition to his duties as secretary and board member. The plaintiff argued that despite counsel's arm's-length ties, he could not be considered anything other than an 'insider, and must not be privy to the plaintiff's trade secrets.'
The district court agreed. The court relied on the seminal case on protective orders, U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., 730 F.2d 1465 (1984), where the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that courts should avoid drawing an arbitrary distinction based on counsel's title, but rather the focus should be properly centered on the risk of even inadvertent disclosure of trade secrets. Here, it made no difference whether the attorney was actually in-house counsel or whether he is directly involved in competitive decision-making, research or sales strategy. What is key, the court stated, is the fact that he sits in the same room as those who are involved in competitive decision-making,' a situation that presents an 'unacceptable opportunity' for inappropriate, if inadvertent, disclosure of trade secrets.
The District Court for the Northern District of
The discovery issue before the court was whether the defendant's co-counsel, who also serves as corporate counsel and a member of the board of directors, should have access to the plaintiff's confidential documents and information. The attorney in question filled a number of roles, but did not serve specifically as in-house counsel. Rather, he was retained separately to work on this case in addition to his duties as secretary and board member. The plaintiff argued that despite counsel's arm's-length ties, he could not be considered anything other than an 'insider, and must not be privy to the plaintiff's trade secrets.'
The district court agreed. The court relied on the seminal case on protective orders,
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.