John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41285
| S.D.N.Y. | 2014Background
- Cahill moved for a protective order to refuse disclosure of supplier identities and book titles not published by plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs contend the information is relevant and previously ordered to be produced in unredacted form for other material.
- Court previously ordered unredacted production for documents, but did not decide independently on relevance of supplier information.
- Rule 26(b)(1) permits broad relevance; discovery may precede trial if reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
- Rule 26(c) permits protective orders for trade secrets or confidential information, with good cause showing injury from disclosure.
- Court tolerates deposition-based disclosure under attorney eyes only protections as to these materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supplier identity and other titles are relevant | Cahill suppliers may show willful infringement | Cahill acted independently | Yes, relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) |
| Whether information qualifies for trade secret protection | Not protected if under court order for litigation use | Protect as trade secrets | Not necessary to deny; may protect as attorneys’ eyes only |
| Appropriate scope of protection | Protect all dissemination | Confidentiality safeguards sufficient | Materials designated as attorneys’ eyes only; use limited to litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (requires showing clearly defined, serious injury for Rule 26(c) protection)
- McKissick v. Three Deer Ass’n Ltd. P’ship, 265 F.R.D. 55 (D.Conn.2010) (burden to show burdensomeness with affidavits; specificity required)
- In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F.Supp.2d 220 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (good cause requires clearly defined injury from disclosure)
- Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (extremely broad relevance with narrow protective measures may apply)
- Dove v. Atl. Capital Corp., 963 F.2d 15 (2d Cir.1992) (district court has discretion to tailor protective orders)