Narrative Opinion Summary
An appeal from a Supreme Court order issued in New York County on August 9, 1996, was dismissed as academic. The order had denied the plaintiff's motion for a protective order aimed at limiting the disclosure of alleged trade secrets to the defendants’ attorneys and experts. However, since the order had been stayed pending the appeal and modified to restrict disclosure accordingly, and because the trial was completed under these modified terms, the appellate court found that the relief sought by the plaintiff was no longer relevant or necessary. The decision was concurred by Justices Sullivan, Rosenberger, Mazzarelli, and Andrias.
Legal Issues Addressed
Mootness in Appellate Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court dismissed the appeal as academic because the trial had already been completed under modified terms, rendering the relief sought by the plaintiff no longer necessary.
Reasoning: The order had denied the plaintiff's motion for a protective order aimed at limiting the disclosure of alleged trade secrets to the defendants’ attorneys and experts. However, since the order had been stayed pending the appeal and modified to restrict disclosure accordingly, and because the trial was completed under these modified terms, the appellate court found that the relief sought by the plaintiff was no longer relevant or necessary.
Protective Orders and Trade Secretssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff sought a protective order to limit the disclosure of alleged trade secrets, but the request was ultimately deemed unnecessary due to the order being stayed and modified during the appeal process.
Reasoning: The order had denied the plaintiff's motion for a protective order aimed at limiting the disclosure of alleged trade secrets to the defendants’ attorneys and experts.