Sharing Plaintiff's Confidential Information With Joint Defense Group Does Not Warrant A Contempt Order Or Sanctions

FH
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP is a law firm dedicated to advancing ideas, discoveries, and innovations that drive businesses around the world. From offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, Finnegan works with leading innovators to protect, advocate, and leverage their most important intellectual property (IP) assets.
In Static Media LLC v. Leader Accessories LLC, No. 21-2303 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 28, 2022), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's contempt order against Leader and its attorney...
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In Static Media LLC v. Leader Accessories LLC, No. 21-2303 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 28, 2022), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's contempt order against Leader and its attorney, and its grant of sanctions and attorney's fees.

The parties entered a protective order stating that “Confidential” documents could only be disclosed to non-parties who execute a “Written Assurance.” Leader joined a joint defense group with a third-party, OJ Commerce, who was sued in a different court. Leader's attorney sent Static's financial documents to OJ Commerce's attorney, who used the documents for settlement negotiations. The district court found Leader and its attorney in contempt and ordered attorney's fees and sanctions.

The Federal Circuit reversed. First, the Federal Circuit held that there is no clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Leader should have known that OJ Commerce would violate the protective order. Second, the Federal Circuit held that Leader's disclosure of Static's confidential information to develop a joint defense strategy was not improper. The word “use” in the protective order implied disclosure to those that are not signatories to the protective order.

Judge Reyna dissented, stating that the district court was entitled to deference in discovery sanctions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Sharing Plaintiff's Confidential Information With Joint Defense Group Does Not Warrant A Contempt Order Or Sanctions

United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP is a law firm dedicated to advancing ideas, discoveries, and innovations that drive businesses around the world. From offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, Finnegan works with leading innovators to protect, advocate, and leverage their most important intellectual property (IP) assets.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More