Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Pechinery Plastic Packaging, Inc. v. Curwood, Inc.
Citations: 220 F.R.D. 452; 70 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1575; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10718; 2004 WL 487325Docket: No. 6:03-MC-194-26
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina; February 4, 2004; Federal District Court
Cryovac's Motion to Quash Subpoenas is denied, and Pechiney's Motion to Compel is granted. The case involves patent infringement disputes between Pechiney and Curwood, with Cryovac as a third-party competitor in the food packaging sector. Curwood alleges that Cryovac's RDX-1690 polymeric films, sold in the U.S. during 1993-94, constitute prior art that could invalidate Pechiney’s ’476 Patent. The core issue is Cryovac's claim that the requested information constitutes a trade secret. The court references the standard from Coca-Cola Bottling Co. regarding trade secrets, noting that the burden initially lies with the resisting party to demonstrate the information is a trade secret and the potential harm from its disclosure. If established, the burden shifts to the requesting party to show the relevance and necessity of the information. The court assumes the information requested is indeed a trade secret and may be harmful if disclosed. However, it finds that Pechiney has sufficiently demonstrated the relevance and necessity of the information for its case. The court balances Pechiney’s need for the information against the potential injury to Cryovac, concluding that disclosure is warranted. The protective order currently in place is deemed insufficient to safeguard Cryovac’s interests, prompting the court to require the parties to propose a new consent protective order to adequately protect trade secrets. The court will enforce this order strictly. The court rejects Cryovac's additional objections and notes that courts differ on how to treat discovery requests directed at non-parties versus actual parties, but this does not alter its decision. A proposed consent protective order must be filed within five days.