You are here: / Trade Secrets
, , , ,

Discovery of Trade Secrets Should Have Been Allowed Upon Execution of Confidentiality Agreement, Documents Indispensable to Defense and Not Otherwise Available

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have allowed discovery of documents from MREC which included trade secrets because the documents were indispensable to the defense and were otherwise unavailable:

We agree … that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the cross motion insofar as it sought to condition disclosure of the documents on plaintiff’s execution of a confidentiality agreement … . We therefore modify the order accordingly. “Discoverability of such documents involves a two-fold analysis: the moving party must show that the discovery demand would require it to reveal a trade secret, which then shifts the burden of the responding party to show that the information was indispensable to proving its [case]”… . Here, MREC met its burden of establishing that the documents sought by plaintiff contained information “not known by those outside the business, [and that the documents] were kept under lock and key, were the product of substantial effort and expense, and could not be easily acquired or duplicated” … . We nevertheless conclude that plaintiff established that the documents sought “were indispensable to [its] case and were otherwise unavailable if they could not be obtained from [MREC]”  … . Conley & Son Excavating Co Ltd v Delta Alliance LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06468, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

, , ,

Criteria for Discovery from Non-Party Explained/Criteria for Discovery of Trade Secrets Explained

The Second Department explained the criteria for discovery demanded of a non-party [Morgan Stanley] and described the relevant considerations when discovery is opposed on the ground that the material requested constitutes trade secrets.  The court concluded Morgan Stanley had demonstrated certain of the discovery requests related to protected trade secrets:

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), a party may obtain discovery from a nonparty in possession of material and necessary evidence, so long as the nonparty is apprised of the “circumstances or reasons” requiring disclosure. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals' recent decision in Matter of Kapon v Koch ( ____ NY3d ____, 2014 NY Slip Op 02327 [2014]), disclosure from a nonparty requires no more than a showing that the requested information is “material and necessary,” i.e. relevant to the prosecution or defense of an action (id., *1). However, “the subpoenaing party must first sufficiently state the circumstances or reasons' underlying the subpoena (either on the face of the subpoena itself or in a notice accompanying it), and the witness, in moving to quash, must establish either that the discovery sought is utterly irrelevant' to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious'” (id.). Should the nonparty witness meet this burden, “the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is material and necessary' to the prosecution or defense of an action, i.e., that it is relevant” (id.). * * *

Notwithstanding New York's policy of liberal discovery (see id., * 4-5), a party seeking disclosure of trade secrets must show that such information is “indispensable to the ascertainment of truth and cannot be acquired in any other way” … . A witness who objects to disclosure on the ground that the requested information constitutes a trade secret bears only a minimal initial burden of demonstrating the existence of a trade secret … . Contrary to [plaintiff's] contention, Morgan Stanley met its minimal initial burden of showing that the documents requested in paragraphs 11 through 19 in the section of the subpoena duces tecum entitled “Requests for Production” contained trade secrets … . Thus, the burden shifted to [plaintiff] to demonstrate that the information contained in those documents was indispensable to the ascertainment of truth, and could not be acquired in any other way … . Ferolito v Arizona Beverages USA LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05153, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

, , ,

No Duty to Defend Where Causes of Action Are Excluded from Coverage Under the Terms of the Policy

The Third Department determined that the terms of two insurance policies prohibited plaintiff’s suit for a declaration the insurance companies had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff.  The causes of action brought against plaintiff (tortious interference with contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices and misappropriation of trade secrets) did not constitute a violation of “a person’s right to privacy” within the meaning of the policies. And the causes of action explicitly excluded from coverage, therefore the insurance companies were not obligated to provide a defense:

…[P]laintiff’s actions —–tortious interference with contract and business relations, unfair and deceptive trade practices and misappropriation of trade secrets –do not constitute a violation of “a person’s right of privacy” within the meaning of either Twin City’s or CastlePoint’s policy.

…[I]it is well settled that “[a]n insurer need not provide a defense . . . when it demonstrates that the complaint’s allegations cast that pleading solely and entirely within the policy exclusions, and further, that . . . the allegations, in toto, are subject to no other interpretation” … . Here, Twin City relies upon three exclusions relative to the personal and advertising injury coverage otherwise afforded by its policy — the intentional conduct exclusion, the breach of contract exclusion and the trademark exclusion [FN4]. In the context of an insurance policy, “the phrase ‘arising out of’ is ordinarily understood to mean originating from, incident to, or having connection with . . . [and] requires only that there be some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage is provided or excluded” … . Without belaboring the point, suffice it to say that our review of the underlying complaint leads us to conclude that all of the allegations contained therein with respect to plaintiff fall within at least one of the cited exclusions. Accordingly, coverage was properly denied for this reason as well. Sportsfield Specialties Inc v Twin City Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 02646, 3rd Dept 4-17-14

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy