Oryon Technologies, Inc. and Oryon Technologies, LLC v. M. Richard Marcus
429 S.W.3d 762
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Oryon Technologies, Inc. and Oryon Technologies, LLC appeal a trial court order unsealing court records under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a(8).
- The Unsealing Order would unseal documents previously sealed and become effective at 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2014.
- The underlying dispute involves a minority shareholder challenging board actions regarding a business transaction.
- Discovery produced documents claimed to contain trade secrets; the trial court granted temporary sealing on Feb. 12, 2014 and considered a permanent sealing on Apr. 4, 2014.
- The appellate court stays the Unsealing Order pending resolution of the Rule 76a appeal to preserve purported trade secret rights and appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a stay pending appeal appropriate to protect trade secret rights? | Oryon argues the Unsealing Order harms trade secret rights and appellate jurisdiction. | Marcus contends the trial court should be allowed to unseal given the public interest and lack of irreparable harm. | Yes; a stay is warranted to preserve rights pending appeal. |
| Is a supersedeas bond adequate to protect appellants’ rights during appeal? | Oryon asserts bonding is necessary to quantify public access value and protect trade secret rights. | Marcus contends a bond can reasonably secure protections without delaying unsealing. | Yes; supersedeas bond is insufficiently quantifiable and a stay is still needed; bond consideration is integrated with stay. |
| Should the court apply Rule 24.4(c) and Rule 29.3 to preserve rights during Rule 76a appeal? | Oryon emphasizes preserving appellate rights before disclosure affects the outcome. | Marcus argues temporary relief should be tailored to preserve rights pending appeal. | Yes; temporary stay to preserve rights pending appeal is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dallas Morning News v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 842 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1992) (recognizes need to protect confidentiality and set limits on disclosure)
- Gen. Tire, Inc. v. Kepple, 970 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. 1998) (preliminary actions should avoid mooting later sealing orders)
- Upjohn Co. v. Freeman, 906 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) (trade secret protection requires caution in disclosure during litigation)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (trade secret right to exclude others central to implied property interest)
- Leonard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988) (discusses continuing value of a trade secret when secrecy is maintained)