Contour Data Sols. LLC v. Gridforce Energy Mgmt., LLC
Contour Data Sols. LLC v. Gridforce Energy Mgmt., LLC
2021 WL 5541787 (E.D. Pa. 2021)
January 19, 2021
Rufe, Cynthia M., United States District Judge
Summary
The court denied the motion to strike, granted the emergency motion for an order to preserve evidence in part and denied it in part, and appointed a special master to assist the parties with the resolution of discovery and other pretrial matters. The court also ordered Gridforce to preserve all potentially relevant evidence, including hard copy and electronic files, documents, notes, contracts, agreements, communications, computer software, licenses, data, programs, specifications, designs, configurations, source code, scripts, and requirements. Lastly, the court granted the motion to seal exhibits, ensuring compliance with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court's.
Additional Decisions
CONTOUR DATA SOLUTIONS LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
GRIDFORCE ENERGY MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., Defendants
v.
GRIDFORCE ENERGY MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., Defendants
CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-3241
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Filed January 19, 2021
Counsel
M. Kelly Tillery, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.Adam S. Sieff, Mary H. Haas, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew A. Chirls, Fineman Krekstein & Harris PC, Philadelphia, PA, Benjamin J. Byer, Jennifer K. Chung, Stuart R. Dunwoody, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant Gridforce Energy Management LLC.
Andrew A. Chirls, Fineman Krekstein & Harris PC, Philadelphia, PA, Benjamin J. Byer, Jennifer K. Chung, Stuart R. Dunwoody, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant Naes Corporation.
Jeremiah Vandermark, Vedder Price, P.C., New York, NY, Joshua J. Orewiler, Thomas P. Cimino, Jr., Vedder Price PC, Chicago, IL, Nathaniel Wright, Vedder Price PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants CDW Corporation, CDW Direct, LLC.
Rufe, Cynthia M., United States District Judge
ORDER
*1 Plaintiff Contour Data Solutions LLC[1] filed this lawsuit July 1, 2020, alleging Defendant Gridforce Energy Management LLC had breached the parties' 2014 Managed Master Services Agreement (“MMSA”) and misappropriated trade secrets.[2] Contour asserts claims for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Delaware law,[3] and violations of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). Gridforce has asserted a counterclaim that Contour breached the MMSA by failing to perform.
Contour has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Gridforce from its alleged continued misappropriation, use, and/or disclosure of Contour's Confidential Information and Trade Secrets under the DTSA. Before the injunction motion can be decided, however, the Court must address the numerous discovery motions filed by the parties. Those motions are: Defendant's Motion to Strike;[4] Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for an Order to Preserve Evidence, Prohibit Further Spoliation, and for Sanctions;[5] Defendant's First Motion for a Protective Order;[6] Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions;[7] Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding CDW Discovery;[8] and Defendant's Motion to Seal Exhibits filed in support of its Motion for a Protective order regarding CDW Discovery.[9]
To place the motions in the context of the proceedings in this case, on September 9, 2020, the Court entered a scheduling order to govern the discovery period in this case.[10] Since that time, the parties have not adhered to the Court's initial scheduling order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Court's comments that discovery must proceed.[11] In the several telephone conferences held with counsel for the parties, the Court never directed the parties to halt discovery and instead advised the parties to focus on the discovery needed for the preliminary injunction hearing. In no way does it appear that the parties had serious discussions about how to reasonably move forward in the discovery process. The Court expects more of counsel appearing before it.
I. Defendant's Motion to Strike
*2 This motion resulted from the parties' failure to comply with the Court's initial Scheduling Order,[12] which directed the parties to file a joint expedited discovery schedule by September 18, 2020. Instead, Contour filed an individual discovery memorandum[13] that addressed discovery issues on that date, September 18, 2020, and Gridforce filed nothing.
On September 30, 2020, Gridforce filed a motion to strike, asserting that Contour's discovery memorandum should be considered the reply brief in support of Contour's motion for a preliminary injunction and thus rendering Contour's actual reply brief,[14] addressing the merits of the preliminary injunction motion, an impermissible “sur-sur-reply.” The motion to strike is without merit. The discovery memorandum is not a substantive reply in support of the preliminary injunction motion, and had counsel complied with the Court's order to file a joint discovery report, the issue never would have arisen. Gridforce's motion to strike will be denied.
II. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for an Order to Preserve Evidence, Prohibit Further Spoliation, and for Sanctions
Styled as an Emergency Motion for an Order to Preserve, Contour alleges that Gridforce ordered the CDW Corporation,[15] a company hired by Gridforce to perform work for it on Gridforce's IT system, to destroy records and documents relating to the work it performed.[16] According to Contour, this order occurred in the spring of 2020—a few months before this action was filed but while Gridforce was under a duty to preserve evidence in anticipation of litigation.[17] Contour further alleges that Gridforce knew that any work performed by CDW that related to Gridforce's IT system in the 2019/2020 timeframe is relevant to Contour's claim that Gridforce misappropriated its confidential information and trade secrets.[18]
Contour seeks an order requiring Gridforce to “preserve all potentially relevant evidence, prohibiting Gridforce from any further destruction or spoliation and from instructing, ordering, directing, or suggesting to any individual to destroy or conceal the same, and imposing sanctions upon Gridforce in the form of an adverse inference concerning the CDW destroyed documents.”[19]
Gridforce contends that it ordered CDW to remove copies of the materials at issue following a three-step procedure in compliance with its internal IT security policies designed to protect the integrity of the power grid. Further, Gridforce claims that although it required CDW to remove the documents at issue from the CDW severs, it made a copy of the relevant documents and archived them on its own secure severs.[20] Gridforce also contends that because it ordered CDW to delete certain documents in compliance with its internal IT security polices it did not act in bad faith and sanctions, in the form of an adverse inference, should not be granted.
A. Spoliation of CDW Documents
*3 In general, “[s]poliation is the destruction or significant alternation of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.”[21] “Spoliation occurs where: the evidence was in the party's control; the evidence is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case; there has been actual suppression or withholding of evidence; and, the duty to preserve the evidence was reasonable foreseeable to the party.”[22]
When a district court finds that spoliation has occurred, it has the authority to fashion an appropriate sanction to remedy the damage to other parties.[23] The adverse inference has a long history in the common law as one such sanction.[24] Such a finding serves to remedy destruction of evidence, based on “the common sense observation that when a party destroys evidence that is relevant to a claim or defense in a case, the party did so out of the well founded fear that the content would harm him.”[25] The Third Circuit also has held that “a finding of bad faith is pivotal to a spoliation determination.”[26]
Here, the evidence that was allegedly destroyed was electronically stored information, or ESI. Under the 2015 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), spoliation occurs where ESI “that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.”[27]
The advisory committee's 2015 note elaborates on this provision and sets three conditions to a determination of spoliation. First, the spoliating party was under a duty to preserve when the loss occurred.[28] Second, the lost ESI was within the scope of the duty to preserve.[29] Third, “the information was lost because the party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve” it.[30] Fourth, because ESI “often exists in multiple locations,” the information was truly lost and not recoverable elsewhere.[31]
*4 Under the facts of this case, Contour's claims of spoliation fail. Contour contends that Gridforce breached its duty to preserve the documents by instructing CDW to delete ESI despite the fact that a reasonable party would have reasonably foreseen litigation.[32] It appears that at the time of the alleged spoliation, Gridforce had a duty to preserve relevant evidence.[33] However, it does not appear that the information is lost. Gridforce represents that it made copies of the information before CDW deleted it, and that the information exists on Gridforce's own secure server.[34] Therefore, Contour has not shown that the ESI is lost; to the contrary, based on these representations, it may be obtained from Gridforce through discovery.[35]
Because the Court does not find that Gridforce spoliated relevant evidence, an adverse inference or other sanctions are not warranted at this time. However, this ruling will be entered without prejudice pending defendant's submission of said records in the course of discovery herein, and as discussed in connection with the preservation order discussed below.
B. Order to Preserve Relevant Evidence
This Court finds that emergency orders to preserve evidence are necessary in the face of legitimate concern about the “continuing existence and maintenance of the integrity of the evidence in question.”[36] “[A]bsent any significant past, present, or future threat to the continuing integrity or existence of the evidence, [a preservation order may be] superfluous.”[37]
In this case, a preservation order is necessary. Contour has presented persuasive evidence to show Gridforce wrongfully instructed CDW to delete the documents at issue from its server.[38] Although Gridforce has supported its position that it backed up the documents onto its own server prior to CDW's removal, it remains to be seen that those records are accurate and compete. The Court will enter a preservation order to ensure no further issues arise during the remainder of fact discovery. The Court finds that preserving all relevant evidence would not present an undue burden on Gridforce as preserving relevant evidence, including any changes to Gridforce's IT system currently in use, is feasible and inexpensive.[39]
*5 Gridforce—and its agents performing work on its behalf—are required to preserve all relevant evidence requested by Contour in its First, Second, and Third requests for the production of documents. Gridforce is also required not to direct, instruct, request, or suggest to any person or entity potentially or in actual possession of relevant evidence to destroy and/or conceal said evidence.
III. Defendant's First Motion for a Protective Order
Gridforce seeks to block Contour from taking the 30(b)(6) depositions of Gridforce and CDW representatives as well as the depositions of C.J. Ingersoll, Jeff Racz, James (JT) Thompson, and Krissie Nelson until at least 14 days after Contour has identified its trade secrets with particularity.[40] In response to this motion, Contour filed a cross motion to compel discovery and for sanctions. Contour seeks to compel Gridforce to produce at a mutually agreeable time and place its 30(b)(6) witnesses, Ms. Ingersoll, and Mr. Racz. Further, Contour seeks confirmation from the Court to proceed with the depositions of J.T. Thompson, Steve Hazlett, and Krissie Nelson.
Based on the December 3, 2020, letter sent to the Court, as well as the deposition transcripts that were filed in support of Contour's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, two of the six individuals Gridforce seeks to impose a protective order upon have been deposed.[41] Therefore, the motion will be dismissed as moot with leave to refile if appropriate.
IV. Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order Regarding CDW Discovery
Gridforce has also moved for a second protective order, seeking to prevent Contour from proceeding with the document production and third-party deposition of CDW (by its representative, Steve Hazlett). Gridforce claims that this discovery is not appropriate at this time because Contour has not yet disclosed its confidential information and trade secrets with particularity, and that such a disclosure must be made before any discovery can be conducted.
The Third Circuit has stated that the description of trade secrets at issue need only be “sufficient to (a) put a defendant on notice of the nature of the plaintiff's claims and (b) enable the defendant to determine the relevancy of any requested discovery concerning its trade secrets.”[42] In similar cases, courts have obligated plaintiffs to define its trade secrets with more particularity in advance of trial on their misappropriations claim.[43] The Court in Xerox concluded that after a year of pre-trial discovery, the aggrieved party should be able to identify in detail the trade secrets and confidential information alleged to have been misappropriated.[44]
The cases cited by Gridforce in support of its motion do not relate to the situation at issue in this matter. In those cases, the courts were analyzing the particularity of trade secrets claims after fact discovery had closed. Here, the parties have not engaged in thorough discovery and the fact discovery deadline is still 12 weeks away.[45] Presumably, those courts allowed the aggrieved party to engage in fact discovery in order to state its alleged trade secret with particularity in anticipation of summary judgment and trial.
*6 The Court does not find that Contour has in fact specified with particularity the trade secret misappropriation claim for purposes of summary judgment or trial, and by the close of discovery, the aggrieved party must be able to sufficiently identify its claimed trade secrets before receiving any order for additional discovery on that issue or for summary judgment analysis.[46] However, pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, and comments made by the Court during the several telephone calls held with the parties, the particularity of the trade secret claim should not obstruct the parties ability to continue with the necessary discovery for the preliminary injunction hearing. Contour can seek relevant discovery to support its claim and the particularity issue will be reviewed more thoroughly on the motion for a preliminary injunction.[47]
The Court will therefore deny Gridforce's motion for a protective order and Contour may pursue compliance with the subpoena to CDW, including but not limited to, the acceptance of documents as well as the testimony of CDW that was scheduled for November 24, 2020. CDW is required to comply with the subject subpoena.
V. Defendant's Motion to Seal Documents Relating to its Protective Order Regarding CDW Discovery
In connection with its protective order, Gridforce filed a motion to seal documents pursuant to the stipulated protective order entered int this matter on August 28, 2020.[48] The exhibits that Gridforce seek to have sealed are designated, in their entirety, as either “highly Confidential – Outside Counsel only” or “ Restricted Confidential – Source Code.” This information includes confidential source code and meets the standard for sealing documents established in In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation, 924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019).[49] In accordance with the case law and the stipulated protective order, the exhibits should be filed entirely under seal pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1.5.[50]
VI. Appointment of a Special Master
As illustrated by this Order, during the short time that this case has been pending, the parties have demonstrated an inability to resolve discovery issues and other pretrial issues without assistance. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(C), the Court will appoint a master to assist the parties with the resolution of discovery and other pretrial matters. By separate Order, the Court will grant the parties an opportunity to be heard and to suggest candidates for appointment.
AND NOW, this 19th day of January 2021, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 37], Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for an Order to Preserve Evidence, Prohibit Further Spoliation, and for Sanctions [Doc. No. 41], Defendant's First Motion for a Protective Order [Doc. No. 44], Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions [Doc. No. 46], Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding CDW Discovery [Doc. No. 54], and Defendant's Motion to seal exhibits filed in support of its Motion for a Protective order regarding CDW Discovery [Doc. No. 59], and all responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:
*7 1) Defendant's Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 37] is DENIED.
2) Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for an Order to Preserve Evidence, Prohibit Further Spoliation, and for Sanctions [Doc. No. 41] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, are (1) ordered to preserve all potentially relevant evidence, which shall include but is not limited to, all hard copy and electronic files (including log and configuration files), documents, notes, contracts, agreements, communications, computer software, licenses, data, programs, specifications, designs, configurations, source code, scripts, and requirements relating to the pre-Contour Gridforce IT system, the Contour-created IT system, and the post-Contour Gridforce IT system, and (2) prohibited from further destruction or concealment of evidence and from instructing, ordering, directing, and/or suggesting to any individual, agent, or third party to destroy or conceal the same. The Motion for Sanctions in the form of an adverse inference related to the CDW-destroyed documents is DENIED without prejudice, and any sanctions are deferred.
3) Defendant's First Motion for a Protective Order [Doc. No. 44] is DISMISSED as moot. If Gridforce still seeks a protective order or further litigation on this issue is needed, counsel is directed to file a new motion.
4) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions [Doc. No. 46] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is compelled to produce its 30(b)(6) witness at a mutually agreeable date and time in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing, as well as Ms. Ingersoll and Mr. Racz for their noticed depositions. The Court also ORDERS that the scheduled deposition of Steve Hazlett proceed immediately and before the preliminary injunction hearing. Sanctions are deferred.
5) Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding CDW Discovery [Doc. No. 54] is DENIED. Plaintiff may pursue compliance with the subpoena to CDW Corporation, including but not limited to, the acceptance of documents as well as the testimony of CDW Corporation which should be scheduled immediately. CDW Corporation is required to comply with the subject subpoena as set forth herein.
6) Defendant's Motion to seal exhibits filed in support of its motion for a protective order regarding CDW Discovery [Doc. No. 59] is GRANTED. Exhibits 2-8 [Doc. No 61] shall remain sealed.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
Footnotes
Contour is a technology company operating in the Delaware Valley region, servicing an array of industries and businesses by deploying enterprise-based technologies in secure cloud experiences.
The MMSA governed Contour's design, creation, authorship, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Gridforce IT system, and the parties' rights and responsibilities concerning the same.
Contour further suggests that there may be violations of other state laws.
Doc. No. 37.
Doc. No. 41.
Doc. No. 44.
Doc. No. 46.
Doc. No. 54.
Doc. No. 59.
Doc. No. 26.
The Court strongly disagrees that it directed the parties not to proceed with discovery until the Court enters a discovery plan. There has been a scheduling order in place since September and in the several telephone conferences held with counsel for the parties, no such order was made. The Court stated that it preferred the parties to focus on the discovery needed for the preliminary injunction hearing.
Doc. No. 26.
Doc. No. 33.
Doc. No. 36.
Contour has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint [Doc. No. 66] where it seeks to name CDW Corporation as a Defendant in this case.
Contour alleges that it learned of Gridforce's instruction to CDW when it issued a subpoena to CDW on September 15, 2020, requesting various categories of documents and deposition testimony.
Doc. No. 41-1 at 2.
Contour alleges that it was engaged in substantive pre-litigation discussions with Gridforce in early 2020.
Doc. No. 41-1 at 2.
Doc. No. 51 at 1.
Costobile-Fulginiti v. City of Philadelphia, 719 F. Supp. 2d 251, 529 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (citing Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Davis, 234 F.R.D. 102, 110 (E.D. Pa. 2005)).
Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 68, 73 (3d Cir. 2012). The party who seeks spoliation sanction bears the burden of proving these factors. Marinkovic v. Battaglia, 2019 WL 4600207, at *13 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2019).
Mosaid Techs., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (D.N.J. 2004).
Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 1994).
Mosaid, 348 F. Supp. 2d at 336; see also Schmid, 13 F.3d at 78 (citing Nation-wide Check Corp. v. Forest Hills Distributors, Inc., 692 F.2d 214, 218 (1st Cir. 1982) (Breyer, J.)).
Bull, 665 F.3d at 79; see also Brewer, 72 F.3d at 334 (“Such a presumption or inference arises, however, only when the spoliation or destruction [of evidence] was intentional, and indicates fraud and a desire to suppress the truth, and it does not arise where the destruction was a matter of routine with no fraudulent intent.”) (citing 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 177).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee's note to 2015 amendment.
Id. (“The new rule applies only if the lost information should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation ....” (emphasis added)).
Id.
Id. Before the 2015 amendment, courts applied the Third Circuit's general spoliation test to both ESI and other information. Since 2015, some district courts within the Third Circuit have continued to apply that test to determine whether spoliation occurred, while applying Rule 37(e) to determine what sanction is appropriate. Although the Third Circuit has not specifically clarified this issue, it appears that Rule 37(e) exclusively governs the spoliation inquiry, while both Rule 37(e) and the Third Circuit's own three-factor test govern the sanctions inquiry. See GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc., 930 F.3d 76, 82 (3d Cir. 2019). After all, Amended Rule 37(e) is intended to provide a uniform standard, and was adopted specifically in response to the different culpability requirements developed by the various Courts of Appeals. See CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 3d 488, 495 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2016).
See Bistrian v. Levi, 2020 WL 1443735, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2020) (discussing the remedy for spoliation of evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and common law duty to preserve in anticipation of litigation).
Gridforce was under a duty to preserve evidence at least as early as February 11, 2020, when it was instructed by Contour's counsel, to “please inform all Gridforce employees and agents to retain and preserve any and all documents and things relevant to any claims, counterclaims and/or defenses of Gridforce and/or Contour and any relevant to the matter set forth in your letter of February 7, 2020.” Letter between Rocco Guerriero and Alan Bull, Doc. No. 41-1 at Ex. B.
See Ingersoll Decl. ¶¶ 13-15, 20 & Ex. B [Doc. No. 51-1].
Since the documents at issue relate directly to Contour's claim that Gridforce hired CDW to perform a “lift and shift” project of the Contour designed IT system, they are relevant to Contour's claims. Additionally, these documents could lead to admissible evidence surrounding Gridforce's continuous use of the Contour-designed IT system.
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. King Trading, Inc., No. 3-08-cv-0398-B, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20036, *2 (N.D. Tx. Mar. 13, 2008); see also Montgomery v. Lockwood, No. 19-2023, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27057, * 10-11 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2020) (issuing order to preserve evidence even in absence of belief any evidence had already been destroyed); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Arena Trading, Inc., No. 3-08-cv-0330-P, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17353 (N.D. Tx. Mar. 5, 2008) (granting emergency order to preserve evidence where plaintiff had proof evidence was previously destroyed and such destruction would recur).
Capricorn Power Co. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429, 434 (W.D. Pa. 2004).
See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 53-1 at 1; 53-2 at ¶ 12.
In responding to Gridforce's claim that preserving a copy of each future change to Gridforce's IT system would not be feasible and would impose a substantial burden on Gridforce, Fred Germana, director of cloud and lead architect at Contour Data Solutions stated “when Gridforce was utilizing Contour's private cloud while Contour was Gridforce's IT vendor ... , Gridforce had every ability necessary to save and retain each and every configuration and data point related to its IT system very easily ... from and effort and cost standpoint, retaining this data merely requires one person at Gridforce to apply a setting to the system calling for the retention. Similarly, storage capacity is easily provisioned and incredibly inexpensive to obtain, with some providers charging as little as $.01 per gigabyte per month.” Declaration of Fred Germana, Doc. No. 53-2 at ¶ 9–11.
Doc. No. 44.
See Deposition transcript of Krissie Nelson and J.T. Thompson. Doc. Nos. 66-7, 66-10.
Arconic Inc. v. Novelis Inc., Civ. A. No. 171434, 2018 WL4944373, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2018) (citations omitted).
See Xerox Corp. v. International Business Machines, Corp., 64 F.R.D. 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (emphasis added).
Id. at 371–72 (emphasis added).
See Court Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 26].
See, e.g., Syngy Inc. v. ZS Assocs., Inc., No. 07-3536, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98656 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2013) (stating “Synygy has now had the benefit of fact discovery” which triggers a heightened standard for making out a specific and particular claim relating to trade secret misappropriation); Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Krivda, 639 F. App'x 840, 845 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming summary judgment because at close of discovery, plaintiff had failed to identify all claimed trade secrets).
The information Gridforce seeks to protect also appears to be relevant to Contour's breach of contract claim. Thus, regardless of Gridforce's position on the specificity level of Contour's trade secret, relevant discovery on Contour's other claims must move forward pursuant to the Court's original scheduling order. Additionally, there was no motion to dismiss based on insufficient pleadings on this matter.
Doc. No. 22.
The Court will also ensure compliance with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court's policy change for sealed filing in CM/ECF.
Id. at § E.