Nike, Inc. v. Enter Play Sports, Inc., 305 F.R.D. 642

Nike, Inc. sues EPS for breach of NDA and Oregon Trade Secrets Act claim.
EPS answers and asserts two NDA-related counterclaims for non-disclosure scope and fees.
Nike alleges its 3-D Braided Upper Concepts and related documents were confidential under the NDA.
EPS allegedly used Nike’s confidential information to file patent applications in May–June 2013.
Parties dispute protective order scope and discovery procedures in a trade secrets context.
Court evaluates protective order form, discovery limits, and sequencing under Rule 26 and proportionality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate form of protective order	Nike supports two-tier form; EPS offers no compelling reason to modify.	EPS objected to access restrictions and record-keeping requirements.	Nike’s two-tier protective order is GRANTED; EPS objections overruled.
Need for greater particularity of trade secrets before discovery	Nike may proceed; its trade secrets need not be exhaustively listed first.	Nike should identify trade secrets with reasonable particularity before discovery.	Nike's specifications are sufficient to permit discovery; not required to identify at this stage.
Sequencing of deposition versus document production	NIKE’s disclosures have been outstanding meses; deposition timing should not block production.	EPS should depose NIKE’s employee before NIKE produces documents.	EPS may depose before NIKE’s production if desired, but cannot block production of its own documents.
EPS's additional objections to NIKE's discovery requests	Objections are insufficiently precise; discovery should proceed subject to protective order.	Discovery should be limited to avoid divulging unrelated confidential information.	Parties directed to confer; NIKE may move to compel under Rule 37 if objections persist.

DeRubeis v. Witten Techs., Inc., 244 F.R.D. 676 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (first-identification considerations for trade secrets before discovery)