2004 Ohio 2594 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2004
{¶ 2} Apollo is a manufacturer of machine parts in Willoughby, Ohio. John and Draga Marusic are shareholders/officers of Apollo and Terry Hynds is an employee of Apollo. Plaintiff-appellee, William Armstrong ("Armstrong"), worked for Apollo as a sales representative from February 1999 until January 2001, when Apollo terminated his employment. As a condition of employment, Armstrong was made to sign a customer protection agreement. This document stated that "the names of those companies [to which Apollo provides goods and services] and the contacts at those companies constitute trade secrets as defined by the Ohio Revised Code." On April 26, 2001, Armstrong filed suit against the defendants alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with a contract, and wanton and intentional conduct, and seeking an order for an accounting and declaratory relief. Apollo counterclaimed against Armstrong alleging violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with business and contractual relations, conversion, defamation, and breach of agreement.
{¶ 3} In the course of discovery, Armstrong issued interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for the production of documents to defendants. Defendants objected that Armstrong was seeking the discovery of Apollo's confidential business information. In particular, the defendants objected to the following discovery requests: interrogatories requesting Apollo's gross revenues for the years 1994 to 2001 and the identification of all products manufactured and sold by Apollo; requests for the production of a list of Apollo's customers from 1995 to 2001, of Apollo's gross sales from 1991 to 2001, of Apollo's monthly invoice registers from 1991 to 2001, of all documents showing the base rate of compensation and commissions paid to Armstrong during his employment by Apollo, of Apollo's scrap/rework loss reports from 1991 to 2001, of Apollo's open orders for the year 2001, and of all employee agreements for sales representatives entered into by Apollo from 1991 to 2001.
{¶ 4} The parties were unable to resolve the discovery dispute. In response to Armstrong's discovery requests, the defendants objected that every request sought information that is "confidential and/or privileged" and moved for a protective order pursuant to Civ.R. 26(C). Defendants sought an order that the information requested by Armstrong be "`disclosed only in a designated way' as provided for within Civ.R. 26(C)(7) through in camera inspection by this court" and "that any information and/or documents disclosed must be limited to `attorneys' eyes only' following the court's in camera inspection." The trial court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the defendants' motion as follows: "[A]lthough there may be potential discovery issues involving trade secrets, Defendants' Motion for Protective Order is overly broad. Defendants[`] contention that all the information requested by Plaintiff is `confidential' and any information disclosed `must be limited to "attorneys' eyes only"' is impractical. Moreover, Defendant Apollo's objection to every single interrogatory, admission and production request is disingenuous. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, this Court Orders that, pursuant to Civ.R. 26(C)(7) and under penalty of contempt, the use of any discoverable information shall be limited to the instant action." The trial court also ordered defendants to respond to Armstrong's discovery within fourteen days.
{¶ 5} The defendants timely appeal and raise three assignments of error.
{¶ 6} "[1.] The trial court erred by ordering the disclosure of confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information to Armstrong without the requested in camera inspection and/or `attorneys' eyes only' limitation.
{¶ 7} "[2.] The trial court erred by denying appellants' motion for protective order due to the inevitable disclosure that will result from Armstrong's access to the confidential, proprietary, trade secret information.
{¶ 8} "[3.] The trial court erred by denying appellants' motion for protective order because it was overly broad, impractical and/or moot."
{¶ 9} Preliminary to addressing these assignments of error, we must address the issue of whether the trial court's December 4, 2001 judgment entry constitutes a final appealable order. The requirement that courts of appeals may only review final orders is jurisdictional. Ohio Constitution, Article
{¶ 10} "(a) The order in effect determines the action with respect to the provisional remedy and prevents a judgment in the action in favor of the appealing party with respect to the provisional remedy.
{¶ 11} "(b) The appealing party would not be afforded a meaningful or effective remedy by an appeal following final judgment as to all proceedings, issues, claims, and parties in the action." See, also, Statev. Muncie,
{¶ 12} It is well-established that, in addition to encompassing the discovery of privileged matter, the term "provisional remedy" also encompasses confidential information such as trade secrets. Gibson-Myers Assoc., Inc. v. Pearce (Oct. 27, 1999), 9th Dist. No. 19358, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 5010, at *6 (trade secrets); Walker v. Firelands CommunityHosp., 6th Dist. No. E-03-009, 2003-Ohio-2908, at ¶ 14 (medical records); Johnson v. Univ. Hosp. of Cleveland, 8th Dist. No. 80117, 2002-Ohio-1396, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1428, at *5 (quality assurance information); Cuervo v. Snell (Sep. 26, 2000), 10th Dist. Nos. 99AP-1442, 99AP-1443, and 99AP-1458, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4404, at *6-*7 (attorney-client privilege).
{¶ 13} "Trade secrets" are defined by the Revised Code as "information, including the whole or any portion or phrase of * * * any business information or plans, financial information, or listing of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, that * * * derives independent economic value * * * from not being generally known to * * * persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use[, and] is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy." R.C.
{¶ 14} Armstrong argues that not all of the information he requested would qualify as trade secrets. The trial court did not attempt to distinguish what information sought by Armstrong constituted trade secrets and what information did not. We agree that the broad scope of the trial court's protective order ("the use of any discoverable information shall be limited to the instant litigation") will certainly include information that does not constitute trade secrets. This fact, however, does not prevent that part of the order that does apply to Apollo's trade secrets from being a final order.
{¶ 15} Not every provisional remedy is a final order. Ingram v. AdenaHealth Sys.,
{¶ 16} Accordingly, we find that the trial court's December 4, 2001 judgment entry is a final, appealable order pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 17} Defendants' first assignment of error challenges the form of the protective order issued by trial court. The Civil Rules authorize a trial court, "for good cause shown," to "make any order that justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including * * * that a trade secret * * * not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way." Civ.R. 26(C)(7). In the regulation of discovery, the trial court has discretionary power and its decisions will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion. Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc.,
{¶ 18} In the present case, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting a protective order that limited the use of Apollo's confidential trade secret information to the present litigation under penalty of contempt. The breadth of the trial court's order has been approved by other courts as adequately protecting the disclosure of trade secrets. Alpha Benefits Agency, Inc. v. King Ins. Agency, Inc.
(1999),
{¶ 19} The defendants argue that the trial court's protective order does not provide adequate protection because Armstrong has already demonstrated his willingness to divulge Apollo's trade secrets. Therefore, defendants argue, any discovery of Apollo's trade secrets must be limited to "attorneys' eyes only." Defendants base their allegations on the decision of the unemployment compensation review commission that heard Armstrong's application for benefits. That decision reports, in its findings of fact, Apollo's sales figures for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. The decision itself does not reveal the source of this information. Apollo claims that these figures constitute trade secret information that Armstrong must have taken during his employment with Apollo. Apollo further notes that Armstrong is currently working for one of Apollo's competitors and has potentially disclosed this information to the competitor. Given Armstrong's willingness to divulge confidential information and his employment by a business competitor, Apollo asserts the necessity of preventing Armstrong from personally viewing discoverable trade secret information.
{¶ 20} We disagree. We do not find that Apollo's sales figures constitute trade secrets as defined in R.C.
{¶ 21} Defendants also argue the trial court's order is overly broad because it fails to limit discovery to information that was relevant to the underlying proceeding. In their motion for a protective order, however, defendants made no argument regarding the relevancy of Armstrong's discovery requests. Instead, defendants relied on the overly broad argument that all the information requested by Armstrong was confidential. We need not consider on appeal arguments that were not raised and, therefore, not considered below. Gamiere v. Kayko, 11th Dist. No. 2002-T-0086, 2003-Ohio-3066, at ¶ 14 (citations omitted). The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 22} Under the second assignment of error, defendants essentially repeat their argument that requiring them to respond to Armstrong's discovery requests would result in inevitable and irreparable harm to Apollo. Defendants add that, under the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, courts have often granted injunctive relief. For the reasons stated above, we find that defendants have failed to prove that the discovery of trade secret information under the court's protective order would inevitably lead to the disclosure of that information. The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 23} Under the third assignment of error, defendants argue that they are entitled to an in camera inspection given the sensitive nature of the information sought for discovery. We disagree. Much of defendants' argument implies that trade secret information is not normally subject to discovery. This is incorrect. Although confidential, trade secret information is not absolutely privileged. Svoboda v. Clear ChannelCommunications, Inc., 6th Dist. No. L-02-1149,
{¶ 24} Moreover, since we find that the trial court's order adequately protects the secrecy of Apollo's trade secrets, the evidence in the record does not demonstrate how an in camera inspection would be necessary in these circumstances.
{¶ 25} Finally, defendants object to the trial court's statement that the motion for protective order is moot as to defendants John and Draga Marusic and Terry Hynds as the court has denied these defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendants argue that since these individuals are still parties to the action, the protective order must apply to them and to any information they produce in discovery. The motion for a protective order is not moot as to the individual defendants simply because the court has denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings. The reasons for the protective order apply equally to the individually named defendants as to Apollo. To this limited extent, we reverse the decision of the trial court.
{¶ 26} In the interest of guaranteeing that the intent of the trial court's protective order is understood and complied with by all parties, we are remanding this case with instructions to the trial court to amend its December 4, 2001 judgment entry so as to make clear that the protective order applies equally to all parties to the action, including John Marusic, Draga Marusic, and Terry Hynds.
{¶ 27} In regards to the issue of whether the protective order is moot as to defendants John Marusic, Draga Marusic and Terry Hynds, the decision of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded. The trial court is instructed to amend its December 4, 2001 judgment entry so as to make clear that the protective order applies equally to all parties to the action, including John Marusic, Draga Marusic, and Terry Hynds. In all other respects, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Rice, J., concurs.
O'Neill, J., concurs in judgment only.
