Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; July 29, 2011; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Delta International Machinery Corporation (Delta) petitions for a writ of mandamus to vacate a Geneva Circuit Court order that granted Brandon Landrum access to certain technology allegedly controlled by Delta. This stems from a lawsuit filed by Landrum after he suffered severe injuries from a Delta-manufactured portable bench saw. Landrum claims the saw was defective under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) and seeks to inspect all saws and technology related to "flesh-sensing technology" developed by a joint venture involving Delta.
Delta opposed the inspection, arguing that the technology was not relevant to the case since it did not exist when the saw was manufactured and was confidential with significant commercial value. Delta asserted that the technology was still in research and not applicable to the saw involved in the incident. The trial court, however, ruled in favor of Landrum, deeming the evidence relevant and discoverable despite Delta's claims of confidentiality, and permitted Landrum’s expert, Stephen Gass, access to the technology. Delta's subsequent motion for a protective order was denied, prompting the current petition for a writ of mandamus.
A writ of mandamus is granted only if four conditions are met: (1) the petitioner has a clear legal right to the requested order; (2) the respondent has an imperative duty to comply but refuses; (3) there is no adequate alternative remedy; and (4) the court's jurisdiction is properly invoked. In discovery matters, the trial court has broad discretion, and its decisions will not be overturned unless it has clearly exceeded that discretion. Mandamus will reverse a discovery ruling only if the trial court has exceeded its discretion and the aggrieved party lacks an adequate remedy through ordinary appeal. Generally, appealing a discovery order is considered an adequate remedy, despite potential delays or costs.
Four specific circumstances allow for review of discovery orders via mandamus: (a) violation of privilege; (b) order compelling production of irrelevant or duplicative documents causing disproportionate burden; (c) sanctions that effectively preclude a decision on merits or deny essential discovery; and (d) prevention of making a record for appellate review. The petitioner must demonstrate that the case is exceptional and that an appeal is not an adequate remedy.
In the discussion, Delta argues that the flesh-sensing technology developed by a joint venture constitutes trade secrets and is irrelevant to the case, as it did not exist when the saw that injured Landrum was manufactured. The court agrees, referencing Ex parte Miltope Corp. and the relevance standards set by Rule 26 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows discovery of any non-privileged matter relevant to the case.
In assessing whether the requested information is likely to uncover admissible evidence, a court must evaluate the plaintiff's claim and the demonstrated need for discovery. The trial court's February 9 order recognized the relevance of flesh-sensing technology to the case. Landrum’s request for inspection of the joint venture's technology was deemed reasonable, potentially helping establish the feasibility of the technology at the time the saw was manufactured. Testimony from Ted Gogall, a representative of Delta, indicated that while component parts of the technology were available in 2004, the necessary algorithm for the control system was not. He suggested that, although components could have theoretically been combined, no one had done so by the time the saw was produced. Gogall also clarified that while experts in the tool industry could have developed such a device if there had been a need, this remained speculative. Furthermore, he asserted that the technology could be applied to smaller saw models, countering Delta's claim that the 40-pound saw was too small for such technology. Delta contended that the trial court misrepresented Gogall’s testimony, a claim supported by the evidence showing that while some components existed, they had not been assembled for this application at that time.
Counsel for Landrum questioned Gogoll regarding the existence of flesh-sensing technology in the 25th week of 2004, when the saw that injured Landrum was manufactured. Gogoll expressed uncertainty about the technology's development timeline, stating he was not an expert in that industry. Although he speculated that the technology might have been possible, he confirmed that it was not available for the specific type of saw involved in the accident at that time. The trial court noted Gogoll's testimony indicated that flesh-sensing technology could potentially be adapted to portable saws, but Gogoll clarified that it was not available for the saw in question, even at the time of his deposition. When asked if the technology could be developed for a ten-inch bench saw, Gogoll indicated that it might be possible in the future, but no project had been initiated for that model. He explained that developing the technology was challenging enough on stable platforms, and there had been no testing on smaller saw models, which dominate the market. Ultimately, Gogoll stated he would not assert that flesh-sensing technology existed for the saw at the time it was manufactured. The trial court’s ruling erroneously assumed that such technology was available, leading to a flawed conclusion regarding its relevance to Landrum's case. In response to a petition for a writ of mandamus, Landrum claimed that Delta could have implemented the technology if they had acted sooner.
Gogoll testified under oath that the flesh-sensing technology developed by the Joint Venture "probably" could have been ready by the 25th week of 2004. Landrum claims that Delta should have incorporated this technology into the portable bench saws manufactured during that period, which led to his injury. Delta's expert confirmed that while the technology could have been available, it was not incorporated into the saw that injured Landrum, and the technology did not exist at that time. Delta argues that Landrum's claim implies a duty to have developed the technology, but under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), Landrum must demonstrate that a safer, practical alternative design was available, not merely that one could have been developed.
Delta also asserts that the joint venture's flesh-sensing technology is a trade secret, and its disclosure could cause irreparable harm. The definition of a "trade secret" under Alabama law includes criteria such as being used in business, not publicly known, and subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. Landrum disputes the classification of the technology as a trade secret, arguing it was created in response to litigation and is not intended for sale. However, evidence presented shows that the technology was developed for commercial use by the joint venture members, and strict confidentiality agreements are in place among the companies involved. Furthermore, although Landrum claims the information is available through trial records and patents, Delta argues that such sources lack specific details about the technology, confirming its confidentiality. Therefore, the court agrees that the flesh-sensing technology qualifies as a trade secret.
The Court in Miltope emphasized the sensitivity and economic value of trade secrets, highlighting the irreparable harm that could arise from their disclosure during the discovery process. If a trial court mandates the release of trade secrets, the affected party cannot adequately remedy the situation through an appeal, as the information's secretive value is lost once disclosed. The Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling Miltope to produce documents containing trade secrets, which were deemed irrelevant to the claims at hand. Consequently, the Court granted the petition to vacate the trial court's order allowing inspection of the technology, classified as a trade secret, and any related devices by a competitor. Additionally, it was noted that Landrum’s motion sought access to technology that could rival SawStop, a product associated with Stephen Gass, who has ties to a competitor and holds patents related to similar technology. The Power Tool Institute opposed Gass's access, fearing he might amend his patents to include the joint venture’s technology, thus jeopardizing their investments. The trial court had previously overruled this opposition. Lastly, a minor correction was noted regarding the spelling of Ted Gogall's last name.
