Opinion
Civil No. 04-CV-1089.
August 5, 2005
James L. Martin (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) John C. Ward (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) David P. Gardner, Tyler J. Anderson (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Global Nutrifoods, LLC and Brad Barnhorn MOFFATT, THOMAS, BARRETT, ROCK FIELDS, CHARTERED, Boise, Idaho.
Martin S. Schenker (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Craig Huckelbridge (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) COOLEY GODWARD LLP, San Francisco, California.
Barry N. Johnson, Attorneys for Defendant Tom Myers.
GNF'S AND TOM MYERS' MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
COME NOW, Global Nutrifoods, LLC, and Tom Myers, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby file this Motion for Modification of Amended Stipulated Protective Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Paragraph 15 of the Amended Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 28). This motion is made on the following grounds and for the following reasons:
1. On March 24, 2005, GNF, Tom Myers, and Dominion Nutrition, Inc., entered into a Amended Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 28). The Amended Stipulated Protective Order provided that documents may be designated either "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential."
2. As it currently exists, the Amended Stipulated Protective Order does not adequately protect GNF's sensitive and proprietary information including the documents it has deemed as "Highly Confidential." Specifically, such information is not adequately protected because counsel of record for DNI, Black Lowe Graham, serve as both patent counsel and litigation counsel and are currently prosecuting patent applications before the United States Patent and Trademark Office relating to the very subject matter at issue in this litigation.
3. Accordingly, GNF and Myers move this Court to add the following paragraph to the Amended Stipulated Protective Order:
5A. "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" RESTRICTIONS ON PATENT COUNSEL
Any Black Lowe Graham attorneys who have received or will receive highly confidential information from GNF under the protective order shall not prosecute any DNI patent applications relating to the broad subject matter of this litigation during the pendency of this case and until one year after the conclusion of the present litigation, including appeals.
4. This motion is based upon the record before this Court, the memorandum filed contemporaneously herewith, and the previously filed Affidavit of Tom Myers (CR 52).