SafeLease Insurance Services v. Storable
2025 Tex. Bus. 28
| Tex. Bus. Ct. | 2025Background
- SafeLease Insurance Services LLC (Plaintiff) and Storable, Inc. (Defendant) are competitors in providing tenant insurance linked to facility management software (FMS) for self-storage facilities.
- SafeLease depends on access to data from mutual customers who use Storable’s FMS; many of its customers license that software from Storable.
- Following the breakdown of business talks in 2024, Storable revoked SafeLease’s FMS data access, citing security concerns.
- SafeLease sued Storable, alleging antitrust violations by Storable’s alleged leveraging of its FMS market dominance to monopolize the tenant-insurance market.
- During discovery, SafeLease requested Storable’s customer list, which Storable resisted only after the court ordered production, later claiming it was a trade secret.
- The dispute centers on whether Storable preserved its trade-secret privilege, and, if it did, whether production would nevertheless be required due to SafeLease’s need for the data and the existence of protective orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade-secret privilege preserved? | Storable waived privilege by not asserting it before the court's ruling or in discovery responses or correspondence. | Storable claims assertion was not required until a privilege log was requested; raised privilege in later motions. | Storable did not preserve the privilege under Rule 193.3(a). |
| Sufficiency of privilege assertion pre-ruling | No privilege was asserted in any written discovery response or correspondence prior to court's May 28 order. | Objection in RFP responses stating information is "confidential, proprietary, and sensitive" sufficed. | Court found Storable’s statement inadequate; privilege not preserved. |
| Relevance and necessity of customer list | Customer list is crucial to present and test antitrust claims, show market definition, and respond to summary judgment. | Customer list unnecessary; aggregate customer numbers suffice, or a neutral third party can view the list at Storable. | SafeLease's need for list outweighs harm; production proper. |
| Adequacy of protective orders | Protective order (Outside Counsel Eyes Only) and prior Rule 11 agreement adequately protect confidentiality. | Disclosure is risky—customer list could reach competitors or be abused by SafeLease; jurisdictional challenge cited. | Protective orders sufficient to mitigate risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Anderson, 163 S.W.3d 136 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005) (strict compliance with Rule 193.3(a) is required to preserve privilege from discovery)
- In re Soto, 270 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008) (failure to timely assert privilege in discovery response waives privilege)
- In re Hardisty, 2000 WL 1160683 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000) (privilege must be asserted as provided in rule or is waived)
- In re Continental Gen. Tire, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 609 (Tex. 1998) (framework for resolving trade secret disclosure conflicts in discovery)
- In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. 2003) (trade secret privilege—burden shifting and necessity analysis)