Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROTOWORKS INTERNATIONAL PLAINTIFF

LIMITED

v. Civil No. 07-05009

GRASSWORKS USA, LLC

GRASSWORKS!!! L.L.C.

BOBBY UMBERSON

LINDA K. REED DEFENDANTS

ORDER

NOW on this the 25th day of April, 2007, comes on for

consideration defendants’ Motion and Brief in Support of

Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Protective Order (document

#46) and plaintiff’s response thereto, and the Court, being well and

sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows:

1. In its previous Order, dated April 11, 2007, the Court held

that defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (document #35) failed

to show that certain subpoenaed records contain the type of

sensitive information which merits protection under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26(c)(7). 

2. Defendants now seek reconsideration of the Court’s April

11th Order by offering evidence to support the contention that the

telephone records at issue are confidential or trade secrets

warranting protection. Moreover, defendants assert that certain

bank records subpoenaed by plaintiff should be protected as they too

are confidential. 

3. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and the various

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/25/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
exhibits attached thereto ultimately fail to establish that the

subject telephone records are, in fact, “trade secrets,” as that

term is defined under Arkansas Code Annotated § 4-75-601(4).

Primarily, defendants fail to present evidence sufficient to show

that these records are not readily ascertainable. Allen v. Johar,

Inc., 823 S.W.2d 824, 826-827 (Ark. 1992) (stating that, generally,

customer lists created through use of a business effort, and the

expenditure of time and money, that are not readily ascertainable,

and are kept confidential are given protection as a trade secret)

(emphasis added).

While defendants cite Allen v. Johar, Inc. to point out that

customer lists have been held to meet the definition of a

protectable trade secret, it is important to consider the factual

underpinnings of the Arkansas Supreme Court’s determination in this

regard. Specifically, in Allen the Arkansas Supreme Court noted

that the customer lists at issue were not readily ascertainable

because they contained detailed information about its customers’

personality traits, hobbies and likes, buying habits, and pricing

agreements. Allen, 823 S.W.2d at 827; see also Statco Wireless, LLC

v. Southwestern Bell Wireless, LLC, 95 S.W.3d 13, 17 (Ark. Ct. App.

2003)(holding that customer lists could not be readily ascertained

and were protectable trade secrets where such lists contained not

only the names of thousands of customers, but also valuable

information regarding those customers such as their contract

expiration dates); but cf. Hi-Line Elec. Co. v. Moore, 775 F.2d 996

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
(8th Cir. 1985) (holding that disputed customer information was not

a trade secret because it was readily available). 

The telephone records at issue are simply a list of telephone

numbers, with the dates and times of various phone calls.

Consequently, the records do not contain the sort of unique customer

information that would make them difficult to ascertain. Thus,

these records are not comparable to the customer lists which were

held to be a trade secret in Allen; and they do not merit protection

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7). Moreover, the Court

does not find defendants’ assertion that telephone records are

protected under the federal Telecommunications Act persuasive, as

this act specifically regulates telecommunications carriers and is,

consequently, inapplicable in the present case. See 47 U.S.C. §

222(a) (1999) (directing the provisions of the Telecommunications

Act to telecommunications carriers). 

4. Regarding the confidentiality and discoverability of the

bank records subpoenaed by plaintiff, the Court first notes that,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), the scope of

discovery permitted in civil litigation is broad. Specifically,

parties may obtain discovery “regarding any matter, not privileged,

that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Further, relevant information need not be

admissible at trial “if the discovery appears reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. Given the

latitude afforded parties in the discovery process, the Court must

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/25/07 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
consider carefully and with caution requests to limit discovery.

In the instant case, defendants argue that the bank records at

issue contain private and confidential information and, thus, should

be subject to a protective order. The Court notes, however, that in

the absence of privileged information, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(b) does not limit the discovery of otherwise

confidential or private information. Additionally, the Supreme

Court has held that a bank customer has “no legitimate expectation

of privacy” in the contents of checks, deposit slips, and other

banking documents. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 440

(1975). Such records are not confidential communications but are,

rather, instruments of commercial transactions and the business

records of the bank. Id. Accordingly, the bank records at issue

here are subject to discovery and do not warrant protection under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7). 

5. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration sets forth several

suggestions for limiting plaintiff’s access to and use of the

disputed telephone and bank records. However, as the subject

records are the legitimate fruits of discovery and do not merit

protection via protective order, the Court finds no reasonable basis

for placing such limitations on the use of this information.

Moreover, as previously stated in its April 11th Order, the Court

will not assume that plaintiff intends to act in bad faith or

otherwise misuse these records. Thus, while defendants speculate

that plaintiff will use the subpoenaed records to bias potential

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/25/07 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
witnesses and retaliate against defendants, such unsupported

contentions do not establish that the disclosure of these records

will be harmful to defendants’ interests in the information

contained therein.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Motion and Brief in

Support of Reconsideration of Denial of Protective Order (document

#46) should be, and it hereby is, denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs

and fees in connection with this motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

 JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/25/07 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>