Integrity Solutions, Ltd. v. MCS Consulting, Inc.
1:24-cv-02519
D. Colo.Apr 25, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Integrity Solutions, Ltd. provides management services and proprietary software solutions to the oil and gas pipeline industry.
- The company alleges that former employees and contractors stole its trade secrets and used them after forming or joining defendant companies.
- Plaintiff claims these trade secrets include industry-leading pipeline risk models, analysis software, and database tools.
- The case involves a discovery dispute related to how Plaintiff must designate its trade secrets during litigation and the scope of discovery demanded from the Defendants.
- The specific discovery issues arose at an April 2025 hearing, resulting in court decisions on two core disputes related to confidentiality designations and scope of document production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level of protection for Plaintiff’s claimed trade secrets in discovery | Should be “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to limit risk of disclosure to competitors | Requires access for defense; AEO blocks defendants from aiding counsel, unfair | Material should be marked “Confidential,” not “AEO”; Defendants need to know allegations |
| Scope of Plaintiff’s RFP #5 demanding all Geo-Prime’s source code | All source code is relevant, given alleged misappropriation | Request is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and a fishing expedition | Request is overbroad; objection sustained unless Plaintiff tailors request to specific at-issue tools |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Hsu, 919 F.2d 130 (10th Cir. 1990) (trial court has discretion in issuing protective orders)
- Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1981) (balancing approach for protective orders and burden of showing good cause)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981) (specific facts, not conclusory allegations, required for good cause under Rule 26)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Indus. Co., 529 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Pa. 1981) (risk of competitive disadvantage is harm cognizable under Rule 26)