In re M&G USA Corp.
90 Va. Cir. 163
Loudoun Cir. Ct.2015Background
- M&G USA and subsidiary M&G Polymers USA (polyethylene producers) petitioned for a pure bill of discovery against Donald Berlin and Investigative Consultants, Inc. (ICI), alleged international intelligence operatives.
- Petitioners contend Berlin/ICI used deceptive emails (beginning Dec. 2011) to try to obtain confidential customer information from M&G Polimeri Italia; the targeted employee (Raffaella Sena) rebuffed the effort.
- A forensic firm could not confirm or deny a network breach; petitioners allege potential compromise of electronic data and inability to determine extent without further discovery.
- INVISTA (competitor and intervenor) sued M&G in Delaware and in Italy; an Italian seizure of M&G customer shipments followed and petitioners believe Berlin/ICI activity may be connected.
- Petitioners seek depositions and documents to establish methods used, steps taken, information obtained, third parties involved, and disposition of any information; Berlin/ICI/INVISTA oppose as fishing and privilege intrusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable pure bill of discovery is available | Need discovery to prove trade-secret misappropriation and tortious interference; other means inadequate | Request is a fishing expedition and invades INVISTA–agent privilege | Granted: court permits discovery under pure bill standards, subject to privilege assertions later |
| Whether petitioners showed materiality/necessity of requested evidence | Emails + failed intrusion + forensic uncertainty + Italian seizure make evidence material and necessary to prove damages and elements of claims | Facts insufficient; speculative link to alleged torts | Court finds petitioners met materiality/necessity (probable-cause standard satisfied) |
| Whether probable cause exists to support bill of discovery (i.e., plausible claims) | Alleged surreptitious effort to obtain confidential info supports probable cause for trade-secret violation and tortious interference | Argues suit lacks probable cause and is malitiousto pierce records | Court applies probable-cause concept (citing Sinclair) and finds probable cause present on pleadings |
| Scope and limits of discovery given privilege concerns | Petition seeks broad production/depositions to trace information flow and harm | Intervenor stresses privilege between INVISTA and agents; warns against improperly piercing privileged relationships | Court approves discovery but preserves and leaves open adjudication of any privilege claims later |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Ayres & Hartnett, 285 Va. 556 (2013) (merger of law and equity did not eliminate equitable remedies such as bills of discovery)
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., 289 U.S. 689 (1933) (court may deny discovery to a suitor lacking probable cause or acting from malice)
- MicroStrategy, Inc. v. Li, 268 Va. 249 (2004) (VUTSA requires proof of trade-secret existence and misappropriation)
- Durrette Bradshaw, P.C. v. MRC Consulting, L.C., 277 Va. 140 (2009) (elements of tortious interference with contract/business expectancy)
- Larkey v. Gardner, 105 Va. 718 (1906) (distinguishes pure bill of discovery from bills seeking both discovery and full equitable relief)