Ademco Inc. v. TWS Technology LTD

Background

Ademco Inc. doing business as Resideo asked the court to resolve TWS Technology and the other defendants’ objection to Resideo’s battery-technology expert, Dr. Kevin White. White is a principal scientist in polymer science and materials chemistry at Exponent. Resideo wanted White to review TWS documents marked “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the parties’ protective order.

The protective order required Resideo to provide White’s signed nondisclosure agreement, resume, recent consulting information, and recent expert-testimony information. It also allowed TWS to object and permitted the parties to ask the court to resolve an unresolved objection. The nondisclosure agreement and protective order limited use of confidential information to this litigation and required the information to be returned at the litigation’s conclusion.

The parties’ dispute

TWS objected based on Exponent’s prior dealings with TWS, Exponent’s access to TWS’s confidential information, and contact between Exponent and TWS concerning the case. Resideo said White had never worked for a TWS entity and offered to establish an ethical wall at Exponent. Resideo later confirmed that White had done limited work for Resideo before this matter but had not worked for the other entities TWS identified.

The court rejected TWS’s argument that the protective-order objection period had not begun. It concluded that Resideo had substantially complied with the protective order and that TWS had the information needed to evaluate White. Applying the factors used for disputes over disclosure of confidential information to outside consultants, the court found that Resideo’s interest in using an experienced expert outweighed TWS’s unspecified concern that White could misuse information about an eight-year-old battery product. The court also noted that White did not control a competitor’s product decisions and that the protective order provided protections and sanctions for misuse.

Ruling

The court overruled TWS’s objection. It allowed Dr. White to review the relevant information but directed that he be walled off from information concerning Exponent’s work with TWS. The court stated that TWS could address potential bias through White’s deposition, seek to exclude him, and question him during cross-examination. It further stated that evidence of improper use of information could support disqualification or other sanctions. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.