S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.
283 F.R.D. 671
D.N.M.2012Background
- This case involves S2 Automation's claims against Micron Technology over Fab 12 in Israel and related relationships arising from Numonyx assets and contracts.
- Micron purchased Numonyx’s Fab 12 and assumed Numonyx’s contract obligations, including the S2 TSM and SOW, without fully informing S2 Automation about Micron Israel’s involvement.
- S2 Automation alleges ownership and control of inventory at Fab 12 and contends Micron breached contracts, misrepresented facts, and unjustly enriched itself after the transfer.
- Micron Israel, a Micron subsidiary, asserts counterclaims alleging S2 Automation and affiliates breached the SOW, conspired to defraud, and damaged Micron Israel’s AMHS operations.
- Discovery has produced sensitive confidential information, motivating Micron to seek a protective order with a two-tier designation system to protect trade secrets and sensitive commercial information.
- The Court grants the protective order in part, requires use of Micron’s baseline order, and endorses a two-tier system, while permitting expert access under clarified conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective order is appropriate | Micron asserts good cause exists to protect confidential information. | S2 Automation argues blanket confidentiality is overbroad and burdens discovery. | Yes; protective order appropriate with two-tier system. |
| Whether to require good cause for each designation | Micron supports umbrella protection to streamline discovery. | S2 Automation urges showing good cause for each document. | No; no document-by-document good-cause requirement. |
| Whether Micron's proposed protective order should serve as baseline | Micron's form already provides two-tier designations and safeguards. | S2 Automation prefers alternative terms and more restrictions. | Yes; use Micron’s proposed order as baseline. |
| Whether to implement a two-tiered designation system (Confidential vs. Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only) | Two-tier system is appropriate for IP and sensitive information. | Two-tier system increases cost and risk of abuse. | Yes; two-tier system required, with limitations on expert-view provisions. |
| Whether parties must notify each other about experts viewing confidential documents | Not necessary to monitor expert disclosures tightly. | Need notification to protect confidential information. | Not required; no blanket notification to disclose expert viewings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. E.D. Etnyre & Co., 229 F.R.D. 661 (D.N.M. 2005) (courts grant protective orders to protect confidential information)
- Velasquez v. Frontier Med. Inc., 229 F.R.D. 197 (D.N.M. 2005) (burden on movant to show good cause for protective orders)
- In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Prods. Antitrust Litig., 669 F.2d 620 (10th Cir. 1982) (timeliness and umbrella protective orders may be allowed)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 (3d Cir. 1986) (umbrella protective orders may be appropriate in complex litigation)
- Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323 (10th Cir. 1981) (trade secret disclosures require protective measures; discretion of trial court)