Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05009-4/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 11th day of April, 2007, comes on for

consideration defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (document

#35), and the Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and

orders as follows:

1. Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, defendants seek a protective order from this Court

limiting discovery as follows:

* Restricting the use and review of telephone records

subpoenaed by plaintiff exclusively to plaintiff’s counsel; and

* Prohibiting plaintiff’s counsel from contacting customers

identified through review of said telephone records except to

schedule depositions.

Defendants maintain that such restrictions are necessary

because the records at issue constitute trade secrets under the

Arkansas Trade Secrets Act, Arkansas Code Annotated § 4-75-601(4),

and contain confidential information. Moreover, defendants claim

that plaintiff “desires to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 45 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
defendants with the use of such [confidential] information.”

Defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order at 2.

2. As noted in defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion for

Protective Order (document #36), it is the initial burden of the

party seeking a protective order to show: (1) that the information

for which protection is sought constitutes a trade secret or other

confidential research, development, or commercial information under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7); and (2) that the

disclosure of such information would be harmful to the party’s

interests therein. In re Remington Arms Co., Inc., 952 F.2d 1029,

1032 (8th Cir. 1991). Only after this evidentiary burden is met

does the burden shift to the party seeking the disputed information

to show that such information is both relevant to the subject matter

of the lawsuit and necessary to prepare the case for trial. Id.

3. Defendants have shown nothing to convince the Court that

the telephone records at issue exhibit the requisite indices of a

protectable trade secret. For example, defendants fail to show the

extent to which the subject information is known outside defendants’

business; the measures taken, if any, by defendants to guard the

secrecy of the information; the value of the information to the

defendants and their competitors; or the ease or difficulty with

which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by

others. See Weigh Systems South, Inc. V. Mark’s Scales &

Equipment, Inc., 69 S.W.3d 299, 301-302 (Ark. 2002) (setting forth

the factors which are material to a determination of whether

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 45 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
information is a trade secret). 

4. By summarily concluding that the telephone records

constitute trade secrets and confidential information, defendants

fail to meet their burden of proving that these records contain the

type of sensitive information which merits protection under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7). Moreover, the Court’s in camera

review of the subject materials did not persuade the Court that

these records warrant protection under Rule 26(c)(7). 

5. Additionally, defendants fail to meet their burden of

showing that the disclosure of the disputed records would be harmful

to their interests in the information contained therein. While

defendants speculate that plaintiff desires to use the telephone

records to annoy, embarrass, or oppress them, the Court will not

assume that plaintiff intends to act in bad faith or otherwise

misuse these records. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT, except to the extent previously

ruled upon by this Court on April 4, 2007, defendants’ Motion for

Protective Order (document #35) should be, and hereby is, denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

 JIMM LARRY HENDREN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:07-cv-05009-JLH Document 45 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>