Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05175/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05175-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
GAP Roofing, Inc.
Counter Claimant
Omega Packaging, Inc.
Counter Claimant
R&R Packaging, Inc.
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

R & R PACKAGING, INC. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5175

GAP ROOFING, INC.; and

OMEGA PACKAGING, INC. DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 22nd day of August, 2007, comes on for

consideration Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Answers To

Interrogatories And Requests For Production Of Documents (document

#41), and from said motion, and the response thereto, the Court

finds and orders as follows:

1. R&R Packaging, Inc. ("R&R") brings suit against GAP

Roofing, Inc. ("GAP") and Omega Packaging, Inc. ("Omega"), alleging

breach of contract on the part of GAP in failing to pay for a

shrink wrap machine, and seeking contribution or indemnity from

Omega if it is determined that GAP is not liable to pay for the

shrink wrapper.

GAP counterclaims that R&R breached the contract and

misappropriated GAP's trade secrets.

The matter is scheduled for trial on December 3, 2007, and

discovery is scheduled to be concluded by September 4, 2007.

Initial expert witness disclosures also are due on September 4,

2007.

2. R&R moves to compel responses to certain written

discovery requests it has propounded to GAP, namely Requests for

Case 5:06-cv-05175-JLH Document 48 Filed 08/22/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

Production Nos. 1,2,3,4, and 6, and Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 9.

The information sought may be summarized as follows:

* Request for Production No. 1 seeks documents relating to

GAP's gross revenues for the past five years.

* Request for Production No. 2 seeks documents relating to

net income for the past five years.

* Request for Production No. 3 seeks GAP's state and

federal tax returns for tax years 2002-2006.

* Request for Production No. 4 seeks GAP's financial

statements for 2003-2007.

* Interrogatory No. 3 asks GAP to identify "every Trade

Secret that GAP allegedly possessed as of January 1,

2006."

* Request for Production No. 6 seeks copies of all

documents which relate to or identify the trade secrets

at issue in this litigation.

* Interrogatory No. 9 asks for an identification of each

element of damage, by category and amount, which GAP

intends to claim at trial.

3. Requests for Production numbered 1,2,3, and 4 appear to

relate to a claim for lost profits which GAP has now dismissed, and

the Court will, therefore, deny that portion of the Motion To

Compel as moot.

4. Interrogatory No. 3 is overly broad, in that it asks GAP

Case 5:06-cv-05175-JLH Document 48 Filed 08/22/07 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

to list all its alleged trade secrets, rather than only those which

GAP claims were misappropriated. However, those which GAP claims

were misappropriated are certainly discoverable, at least insofar

as required to reach the issue in dispute, i.e., whether there was

any misappropriation. Request for Production No. 6 seeks

information discoverable for the same reason.

GAP asserts, in response to the Motion, that on August 6,

2007, it "turned over a list of the trade secrets alleged to have

been misappropriated with pictures of the same." It contends that

this is sufficient response to Interrogatory No. 3 and Request for

Production No. 6. 

It appears to the Court that GAP's production may well be

satisfactory, and the Court will deny this portion of the Motion To

Compel as moot, without prejudice to R&R renewing the motion if it

believes that more specificity as to the nature of the allegedly

misappropriated trade secrets is required.

5. Interrogatory No. 9 seeks information that is clearly

discoverable. Some of this information was supplied in response to

the Interrogatory, but some was said to be "unknown with certainty

at this time," and GAP acknowledged its duty to supplement the

response. 

In response to the motion, GAP asserts that it is unable to

give any additional information about its damages without the

assistance of an expert witness, and will produce the report of

Case 5:06-cv-05175-JLH Document 48 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

that witness by the deadline of September 4, 2007. 

R&R's problem with not receiving the expert disclosures until

September 4 is that discovery closes that day. The Court will,

however, allow R&R to take discovery of the expert and the bases

for his or her opinions after the conclusion of discovery to the

extent reasonably necessary to accommodate R&R's concerns. The

Motion To Compel will, therefore, be granted as to Interrogatory

No. 9, with the understanding that GAP will produce its final

response to Interrogatory No. 9 on or before September 4, 2007, and

will fully cooperate in scheduling the deposition of its witness

within two weeks after that date, should R&R so request.

6. GAP suggests that this Court should enter a "protective

order requiring all documents related to GAP's trade secrets to be

filed under seal," citing 78 Okla.St.Ann. §90 and F.R.C.P.

26(c)(7). This request, if honored as written, would require

virtually the entire file in this case to be sealed, as most

documents in some way "relate" to the alleged trade secrets. The

Court does not find such drastic measures to be indicated.

All that §90 requires is that in an action to protect trade

secrets, the Court "preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret

by reasonable means." At this stage of the proceedings, the Court

has no reason to doubt that the filing of appropriately redacted

documents will suffice both to protect any alleged trade secrets

and to bring any necessary issues to the Court's attention. If and

Case 5:06-cv-05175-JLH Document 48 Filed 08/22/07 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

when specific documents must be filed that cannot be redacted in

such a way as to protect secret information without destroying the

document's usefulness to the decision-making process, the Court

will require that the party desiring to file such documents make a

particularized showing of the need to seal.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Compel

Answers To Interrogatories And Requests For Production Of Documents

(document #41) is granted in part and denied in part.

The Motion is granted insofar as it seeks to compel a response

to Interrogatory No. 9, asking for an identification of each

element of damage, by category and amount, which GAP intends to

claim at trial. GAP is directed to produce that information no

later than September 4, 2007, and to arrange a deposition of its

witness on that information within two weeks of that date if

requested by R&R.

The Motion is denied in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05175-JLH Document 48 Filed 08/22/07 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>