Tomassetti v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-02587
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tomassetti v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC, Judge Briccetti struck a sharing provision from a protective order to protect confidential trade secrets.
Adelmo Tomassetti, Rose Tomassetti, and Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC. The order limits disclosure of Little Giant’s confidential trade secrets to attorneys involved in other lawsuits.
What happened
In Tomassetti v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC, the parties disagreed about a proposed protective-order provision that would allow the plaintiffs to share Little Giant’s confidential trade secrets with attorneys representing plaintiffs in other lawsuits involving allegedly defective ladders.
The court weighed the possible benefits of sharing discovery against the risk of disclosing confidential business information. It found that Little Giant showed the information included protected trade secrets, such as testing protocols, schematic drawings, and material compounds, and that the plaintiffs had not explained how removing the provision would harm their case.
The court struck Paragraph 6.g from the otherwise agreed protective order, directed that a modified protective order and a sealing order be entered separately, and found that no discovery conference was needed. Judge Briccetti also directed the clerk to terminate the letter motion.
The detailed version
- Tomassetti v. Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC · No. 7:22-cv-02587
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 16, 2022
Background
Defense counsel requested an informal discovery conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 concerning Little Giant’s objection to a proposed “sharing provision” in the plaintiffs’ protective order. The provision would have allowed disclosure of Little Giant’s confidential trade secrets to any attorney representing a plaintiff in a pending lawsuit against Little Giant alleging that defects in a multiposition ladder used in extension-ladder mode caused personal injuries.
Court’s Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may issue a protective order and decide the degree of protection required. The court explained that discovery is generally intended to help parties prepare for trial on their own existing claims, rather than to determine whether third parties have similar claims. The court therefore balanced the possible benefits of sharing discovery across cases against the risk of disclosing confidential trade secrets.
The court found that Little Giant had adequately shown through a sworn affidavit that the information involved confidential trade secrets, including internal testing protocols, schematic drawings, and material composite compounds. The affidavit stated that the information was accessible only to upper-management personnel and kept securely in the company’s office. The court also found that disclosure to people and entities outside the case could place Little Giant at a competitive disadvantage and make enforcement of the protective order difficult or impossible. The plaintiffs’ counsel had not explained how removing the provision would prejudice prosecution of the current case.
Ruling
The court struck Paragraph 6.g from the parties’ otherwise agreed protective order. It stated that it would separately enter the modified protective order and an order concerning the filing of documents under seal. Because of that ruling, the court found that a Rule 37.2 conference was unnecessary. The clerk was directed to terminate the letter motion. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not rule on the merits of any underlying ladder-injury claim in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.