Hitkansut LLC, a Michigan Corporation, & Acceledyne Technologies, Ltd., LLC, a Michigan Corporation v. United States
111 Fed. Cl. 228
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Hitkansut seeks production of information related to CRADAs between the government and private partners and a protective order for confidential materials.
- The FTTA § 3710a(c)(7) provides two protections depending on information source: (A) absolute bar for private-party information and (B) discretionary protections for agency information for up to five years.
- Hitkansut argues discovery should reveal how the government’s CRADA process operated, including temperatures, times, and related material data, plus related financials.
- The government withholds third-party CRADA information under the statutory privilege claimed under § 3710a(c)(7)(A), and opposes Ms. Walker’s access to confidential technical information.
- The court analyzes the scope of protection and whether § 3710a(c)(7) creates a discovery privilege or a temporary FOIA exemption, and whether a protective order should grant access to Ms. Walker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 3710a(c)(7)(A) bar disclosure in civil discovery? | Hitkansut: government cannot disclose private-partner information at all. | United States: statute provides an absolute bar in discovery for qualifying information. | Yes; § 3710a(c)(7)(A) prohibits discovery of qualifying private information. |
| What is the scope of information protected under § 3710a(c)(7)(A)? | Protection may extend to information disclosed pre- or post-CRADA signing and negotiations. | Scope is limited to information obtained from private CRADA partners during CRADA conduct. | Protection extends to information obtained in negotiations and activities under the FTTA, including pre-signing information. |
| Does § 3710a(c)(7)(B) create a discovery privilege or merely FOIA protections? | Subparagraph (B) offers ongoing discovery protection beyond FOIA. | (B) provides discretionary protections for agency information, not a discovery privilege. | (B) is discretionary protection, not a discovery privilege. |
| Should Ms. Walker be allowed access to confidential technical information under a protective order? | Ms. Walker’s expertise is necessary to evaluate the infringement. | Ms. Walker is a competitor-affiliate and should be barred to protect CRADA partners. | No; protective order does not permit Ms. Walker to review proprietary technical information. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeLorme Publ’g Co. v. NOAA, 917 F. Supp. 867 (D. Me. 1996) (broad interpretation of protections under § 3710a(c)(7)(B))
- Spectrum Sci. & Software, Inc. v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 716 (2008) (Subparagraph (A) prohibits disclosure of private CRADA information)
- Public Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Food & Drug Admin., 704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (definition of trade secrets and broad interpretation of commercial information)
- In re England, 375 F.3d 1169 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (statutory interpretation and breadth of plain language)
- Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345 (1982) (statutory privilege must be strictly construed)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000) (statutory construction starting with language)