ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Mastercard Tech., LLC
ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Mastercard Tech., LLC
2016 WL 617417 (D.Neb. 2016)
February 16, 2016
Gossett, F. A., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court denied the Defendants' motion for a source code protective order, finding that the current protective order provides sufficient protection for source code. The Court suggested that the parties could agree to additional provisions if they deemed them necessary.
Additional Decisions
ACI WORLDWIDE CORP., Plaintiff,
v.
MASTERCARD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL, Incorporated, Defendants
v.
MASTERCARD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL, Incorporated, Defendants
No. 8:14CV31
United States District Court, D. Nebraska
Signed February 16, 2016
Counsel
Elsa M. Bullard, Kerry L. Bundy, Randall E. Kahnke, Tyler A. Young, Faegre, Baker Law Firm, Minneapolis, MN, Gregory C. Scaglione, John V. Matson, Koley, Jessen Law Firm, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff.Adam W. Barney, James M. Bausch, Trenten P. Bausch, Cline, Williams Law Firm, Omaha, NE, Brendan Zee-Cheng, Daniel E. Sakaguchi, Mark A. Thomas, Nicholas B. Clifford, Samir R. Mehta, Armstrong, Teasdale Law Firm, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants.
Gossett, F. A., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration (filing 249). The motion will be denied.
DISCUSSION
Defendants request that the Court reconsider its December 4, 2015 order which denied Defendants' request for a source code protective order (filing 244). Defendants maintain that the Court's order did not address Defendants' alternative request that the current protective order be modified to include source code specific protections. Defendants claim that the protections specific to source code that are not in the current protective order include: (1) a definition of source code; (2) restrictions on how and where source code may be uploaded and viewed, including a requirement that it be installed on a non-networked computer; (3) restrictions on copying; (4) restrictions on printing; and (5) a prosecution bar.
The Court is of the opinion that the current protective order provides sufficient protection for source code. Still, if the parties were to agree that additional provisions are necessary in light of the current state of discovery, the Court would, at that time, entertain the inclusion of additional provisions. However, without such an agreement, the Court is unwilling to revisit its previous decision denying Defendants' request for a source code protective order, as the Court believes the current order provides generous protection.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration (filing 249) is denied.