Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation

Background

The plaintiffs sought Thomson Reuters Corporation’s data-licensing agreements with third parties concerning CLEAR. Thomson Reuters did not dispute that the requested agreements were relevant or that at least some agreements would be produced. It stated, however, that more than 80 agreements contained confidentiality restrictions, including provisions requiring advance notice before disclosure and provisions allowing production without notice after a court order.

Thomson Reuters proposed notifying the affected third parties, waiting to see whether they objected, and bringing any remaining disputes to the court later. The plaintiffs said the request had been pending for several months, Thomson Reuters had not produced any agreements or notified the third parties, and the court should compel production of all the requested agreements despite the confidentiality provisions.

Court’s analysis

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request. It explained that confidentiality agreements do not bar discovery and that a general interest in confidentiality is not the same as legal privilege. Thomson Reuters also did not dispute that confidential information produced in discovery would be covered by the parties’ agreed protective order.

The court concluded that there was no legal basis to delay production. It rejected Thomson Reuters’s reliance on a prior case because that case used a notification-and-objection process that the parties had included in their protective order; it did not establish a new procedure for the court to impose. The court also noted that the protective order in this case did not contain a similar procedure and that third parties could move to intervene to oppose the requested discovery.

Ruling

Judge Edward M. Chen ordered Thomson Reuters Corporation to produce all relevant requested data-licensing agreements to the plaintiffs within 21 days after entry of the order. The order stated that it disposed of Docket No. 81.