Opinion
Order on Motion for Reconsideration April 28, 1992.
Order May 5, 1992.
Protective Order June 15, 1992.
In product liability suit against manufacturer of rifle, plaintiff sought discovery of information about manufacturer's development program for new rifle. Manufacturer filed motion for protective order to prevent discovery on ground that information sought was protected by trade secret privilege. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ordered production of requested information, and manufacturer filed petition for writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals, 952 F.2d 1029, issued writ and remanded. On remand, the District Court, Scott O. Wright, Senior District Judge, held that plaintiff was entitled to production of documents from new rifle development files, under safeguard of protective order, where plaintiff demonstrated relevancy and need, and plaintiff's need for information outweighed defendant's interest in confidentiality.
Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery granted in part; defendant's motion to reconsider denied in part and granted in part.
Richard C. Miller, Woolsey, Fisher, Whiteaker & McDonald, Springfield, Mo., for plaintiff.
John W. Shaw, Lathrop & Norquist, Kansas City, Mo., Ronald R. McMillin, Carson & Coil, Jefferson City, Mo., for defendants.
ORDER
SCOTT O. WRIGHT, Senior District Judge.
The Court has completed its review of the documents submitted in camera and the briefs concerning plaintiff's original motion to compel production of documents. This issue came before the Court on remand from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In re Remington Arms Co., Inc., 952 F.2d 1029 (8th Cir.1991). After review of the matter, the Court rules that Remington Arms Co., Inc. shall produce the documents specified in Appendix A under the safeguard of a protective order.
Defendant Remington Arms Co., Inc. presents two arguments for the Court to find that it should not be required to produce the documents. First, Remington argues that the documents should not be disclosed, or should only be disclosed under the most restrictive of protective orders, because: (1) they are irrelevant to plaintiff's claims concerning the Model 700 rifle; and (2) they are highly sensitive trade secrets, pertaining to an as yet not developed New Bolt Action Rifle. " NBAR" is the acronym for " New Bolt Action Rifle." Secondly, Remington contends that the documents should not be released even under a protective order, because a protective order cannot adequately protect their interest in confidentiality. At the heart of Remington's second argument is the claim that counsel for plaintiff previously has violated protective orders issued in other cases.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) affords protection in cases where discovery involves trade secrets. The rule provides that a court may limit the terms of disclosure or refuse disclosure where good cause is shown, such as in the case of a trade secret or confidential information. A court must balance the competing interest in disclosure and discovery against the interest in confidentiality.
As the Eighth Circuit has advised, the court inquiry involves two parts. First, the party opposing discovery must show that the information is a trade secret or confidential information of a proprietary nature requiring protection, within the meaning of Rule 26(c)(7). Missouri law applies to determine whether the documents are trade secrets. See A.B. Chance Co. v. Schmidt, 719 S.W.2d 854, 857-58 (Mo.App.1986) (defining trade secret in context of employment contract restricting disclosure). Then the burden shifts to the party seeking discovery to establish relevancy and need. In re Remington Arms, 952 F.2d at 1032. If the party successfully shows both relevance and need, then the court must weigh the potential injury from disclosure against the moving party's need for the information.
In this case, if Remington shows the NBAR documents are trade secrets and Plaintiff Hartman shows their relevancy and need, then the Court must issue an appropriate protective order to preserve the interests of the parties. Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assoc., 665 F.2d 323, 325 (10th Cir.1981). Before designing a proper protective order, the Court must consider Remington's second contention that plaintiff's counsel has permitted unauthorized disclosures of information covered by protective orders in prior cases. If a protective order cannot prevent unauthorized disclosure by plaintiff, then the Court may find it appropriate to deny production of the documents.
Trade Secrets
The Court has reviewed each of the documents filed in camera. Defendant claims the NBAR documents are privileged and should remain confidential because they are trade secrets. Although some of the documents are privileged and constitute trade secrets independently, defendant maintains that all are privileged because they are part of the compiled NBAR files. According to Remington, once it included the documents in the NBAR development files, they became part of the NBAR trade secret and would show the company's developmental design process and files.
Missouri law utilizes the definition of trade secret presented in Restatement of Torts § 757(b). Trade secret information, such as a process, formula or design, must be secret or it loses its privilege of confidentiality. A.B. Chance Co., 719 S.W.2d at 858 (quoting five factors from Restatements § 757(b), defining a trade secret). Trade secret is a flexible term and involves a number of factors to assess the party's interest in confidentiality.
Defendant bases its privilege on the assertion that the documents are NBAR trade secrets. The Court's review of the materials and the briefs submitted indicates that many of the documents do pertain to the NBAR product that remains in the development stage. However, some of the documents concern products other than NBAR. Giving a broad interpretation to Remington's privilege claim, the Court finds that defendant has demonstrated the trade secret privilege applies to the NBAR documents and to other documents included in the files.
Relevancy and Need
The next question is whether plaintiff has demonstrated that the documents are relevant and needed. Remington's contention that the documents are irrelevant and entitled to all-encompassing protection goes too far. Although defendant hinges its privilege on the fact that the NBAR files are trade secrets, the documents are not limited to NBAR information. A few documents are copies of magazine articles, already part of the public domain even though they have added significance as part of the NBAR files. A large number of the NBAR documents include significant references to the Model 700, as well as to similar models of defendant's products. Under Remington's assertion, any document placed in these files is privileged as a trade secret because it is part of the " compilation of information." Taking defendant's argument to the " nth" degree would encourage defendants to merge research on existing/old products with development of new designs in order to avail themselves of the trade secret privilege for all documents placed in the on-going research files. The documents do not lose their relevance to plaintiff's claims simply by their placement in the NBAR files.
In this case, plaintiff seeks discovery of information for his product defect, negligence, and other tort claims. Many of the documents relate to plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff alleges that the Model 700 design is flawed with respect to its safety, trigger mechanism, bolt lock, and accidental firing. Plaintiff further alleges that NBAR is simply a continuation of the Model 700.
A review of the NBAR files reveals their relevance to the issues of causation, feasible alternative designs, and defendant's knowledge at the time. Plaintiff asserts, and defendant has not refuted, that the company's research and work on Model 700 curtailed in the early 1980's, around the same time that the NBAR design was getting off the ground. The features addressed in the NBAR documents are relevant to Remington's knowledge of design alternatives and of problems with Model 700.
Plaintiff also has demonstrated the need for these documents. Without the NBAR documents, plaintiff is left with a significant time gap in the evidence concerning the design information known to defendant; the evidence also provides the only source of admissions and information on defendant's knowledge of alleged Model 700 defects, testing done on Model 700 and alternative components.
Two examples illustrate the overbreadth of defendant's contention that all the documents are entitled to absolute protection as NBAR trade secrets. The first example is an undated note from Ed Herring on a photocopied page from a magazine or book, File 11 Document DF 46. The note specifically addresses incorporating an alternate component in the Model 700 rifle. Defendant asserts that the document is part of Mr. Martin's NBAR files, " perhaps because of the drawing of a competitive fire control contained therein." Despite the fact that File 11 Document DF 46 expressly refers to the Model 700 and its safety options, defendant's index reveals that it has never been produced to plaintiff and that its only basis of confidentiality is as " compilation of information."
The second example appears to be a customer letter, from Bob Hagel, about the Model 700 written on February 9, 1984, File 11 Document DF-1468. Defendant's counsel explains that Mr. Hagel is a gun writer. Although this letter discusses only the Model 700, counsel explains that the letter was directed to the NBAR design team and placed in the NBAR files because it suggested an added Model 700 feature which the NBAR team is considering for the new design. Documents DF-1466-67 and 1469 relate to the Hagel letter and the feasibility of alternative designs.
Plaintiff has established that the NBAR documents are relevant and needed.
Balance of Interest
Where information has been found both relevant and necessary to a plaintiff's case, the court then must balance the defendant's interest in confidentiality against the plaintiff's need for the information. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 107 F.R.D. 288, 291-93 (D.Del.1985). Generally, an appropriate protective order can preserve the interests of both parties. Centurion Indus., Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assoc., 665 F.2d 323, 325 (10th Cir.1981).
A balance of the competing interests in this case undercuts defendant's claim of absolute privilege. In a case where opposing party is a competitor, defendant's files as a whole would be due a greater level of protection. Here, plaintiff is allegedly the party injured by tortious wrongdoing. Discovery of the documents is critical to plaintiff's case.
The Eighth Circuit directs that, on remand, this Court consider Remington's allegation that plaintiff's counsel previously permitted unauthorized disclosures of information covered by protective orders in past cases. If a protective order cannot assure the confidentiality of Remington's documents, then discovery must be denied. The parties have fully briefed the issue.
Remington alleges two violations of past protective orders. The first involves a deposition of Stuart Otteson, taken by plaintiff's counsel in the case of Davison v. Remington Arms Co. Inc., Case No. 89-56RG (C.D.Cal.), where counsel allegedly disclosed protected documents from Chapa v. Remington, Case No. 13,461 (D.C. Duval County, Tex.). The second allegation concerns disclosures of documents protected in Lewy v. Remington Arms, Case No. 83-3172-CV-S-2 (W.D.Mo.), to plaintiff's expert John Butters prior to Mr. Butters executing an affidavit concerning their confidentiality.
Violation of Chapa Order
Remington alleges that plaintiff's counsel improperly disclosed protected documents to Mr. Otteson, during the course of deposing Mr. Otteson. The documents were part of the protected information in the Chapa case. Plaintiff makes two responses to this charge.
First, plaintiff contends that Mr. Otteson was a defense expert and, even if he was not identified as a defense expert, he was an employee or expert for purposes of the deposition. Plaintiff asserts that, in deposing an adverse witness, disclosure was proper and that plaintiff is not responsible for assuring that defendant's employees and consultants comply with the protective order. Plaintiff contends that counsel for Remington has admitted in prior cases that Mr. Otteson was a consulting expert for the company and when he appeared for deposition three Remington lawyers attended. Defendant has submitted a series of carefully worded affidavits to refute the contention. Mr. Otteson avers, in his affidavit, that plaintiff's counsel served him with a deposition notice for the Davison case and sent him documents. He does not describe the documents or otherwise identify them. Noticeably, Mr. Otteson does not state whether he was under defendant's employ or hired as a consulting witness in the Davison case. Mr. Shaw, Remington's counsel in Davison, expresses in his affidavit that defendant had never identified or retained Mr. Otteson as an expert in the case; he does not address whether Mr. Otteson was otherwise in the employ of Remington. Mr. Ware, counsel for Remington in other cases, provides his affidavit stating that he has hired Mr. Otteson as a consultant for preparation in litigation in other cases. Mr. Ware also attests that he is not part of the Davison litigation and has only bare knowledge of the case, however, he affirms that Mr. Otteson is not a consulting expert in Davison, to the best of his knowledge.
Second, plaintiff asserts that the documents disclosed to Mr. Otteson were not protected trade secrets because the trade secret privilege relating to those documents has been lost or diminished through a series of trials and inadvertent disclosures. The Chapa protective order permits disclosure of confidential documents to persons whose services are necessary to the litigation. Only one of the documents which plaintiff identifies as potential Chapa documents is designated as confidential. That document, plaintiff asserts, became unprotected when it was admitted as evidence in the Lewy case. Moreover, plaintiff argues that the Chapa order permits limited disclosure for other litigation and does not proscribe disclosure to Remington's experts.
The Court notes that Remington never brought claims of a protective order violation to the attention of the Chapa or Davison courts. Although Remington contends that deposing Mr. Otteson was improper under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d), it never raised that objection in the Davison case. The three carefully worded affidavits lend little support to defendant's assertion that Mr. Otteson was not an employee or consultant of Remington. Moreover, defendant has failed to identify any document that was improperly disclosed to Mr. Otteson. Plaintiff has identified the pertinent documents and has explained that the documents are unprotected by the Chapa protective order because they had previously lost their protected status. The Court finds no violation of a protective order, based on the evidence presented.
Violation of Lewy Order
Remington next alleges that plaintiff's counsel improperly disclosed documents protected in Lewy v. Remington Arms, Case No. 83-3172-CV-S-2 (W.D.Mo.), to plaintiff's expert John Butters. The essence of the alleged violation is that Mr. Butters failed to execute the required affidavit promising to keep the information confidential before he viewed the documents. Mr. Butters did execute such an affidavit after the Lewy case was concluded and the affidavit was filed following post-trial motions in the Lewy case, as required by Paragraph 4 of the protective order.
Defendant contends that this " after-the-fact" compliance is not compliance at all and constitutes a violation of the Lewy order. Defendant makes no claim that the alleged violation was raised before the Lewy court. Nor does defendant allege any harm accrued from the belated execution of Mr. Butters' affidavit.
Mr. Butters has been identified as a plaintiff's expert in more than a dozen Remington-related cases, and he attests that he knew beforehand of the applicable protective order and the confidentiality of the documents. Mr. Butters explains that he has previously seen the same documents in similar Remington cases, so he did not view them for the first time in the Lewy litigation. He vows that he has retained their confidentiality and never will disclose or discuss the information outside the terms of the protective order.
Paragraph 4 of the Lewy protective order applies and Mr. Butters should have executed the affidavit prior to viewing any protected documents. The Court finds that plaintiff's counsel substantially complied with the Lewy order. This compliance is adequate, in the absence of some showing of harm.
Weighing the Interests
Defendant has established that the NBAR documents are entitled to protection as trade secrets. Plaintiff, on the other hand, has shown the relevancy and need of those documents. After weighing the party's respective interests, the Court determines that disclosure with certain exceptions is appropriate. A protective order can adequately safeguard defendant's interest in the confidentiality of the NBAR documents. Some of the documents are entitled to absolute protection because they feature the actual designs for the NBAR product; defendant will not be ordered to disclose those documents, as specified in Appendix A. A weighing of the competing interests results in a ruling that all documents in the NBAR files, other than those specified here, should be disclosed under the guise of a protective order.
Conclusion
Once defendant established that the in camera NBAR documents are probable trade secrets, plaintiff made an adequate showing of their relevance and need. Defendant has not demonstrated its claim that plaintiff's counsel violated the Chapa protective order. The evidence pertaining to the Lewy violation, the " after-the-fact" affidavit, constitutes a technical violation; substantial compliance has been satisfied and no harm has resulted. While compliance with court orders is mandated, each counsel must evaluate whether these kind of technical, insubstantial violations of protective orders should be brought to the attention of the courts. In the future, defendant would find it advisable to raise objections to disclosure or allegations of protective order violations before the court which issued the order. That would lend credence to defendant's allegations of such violations in later proceedings.
The Court finds that the competing interests weigh in favor of defendant with respect to certain documents; those documents are specified in Appendix A and are entitled to absolute protection, due to their highly confidential nature. The Court resolves that defendant's proprietary interest in the remaining NBAR documents will be adequately protected by a properly worded protective order. Remington and plaintiff will be ordered to file a joint proposed protective order for the Court's approval.
It is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is granted in part, as described in this Order. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant Remington Arms Co., Inc.'s motion to reconsider is denied in part and granted in part, to the extent described in this Order. It is further
ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint proposed protective order for Court approval, on or before April 23, 1992. It is further
ORDERED that Remington is required to produce the documents as described in Appendix A, attached to this Order. All documents shall be disclosed under the terms of the protective order.
APPENDIX A
Remington Arms Co. Inc. shall produce for discovery the documents noted below. Remington should provide plaintiff the index of the disclosed documents which indicates the name of the file numbers referred to below. Pages that are part of the same document should be fastened together.
File 1
Produce all documents in this file except:
DF 2935
Any documents dated after November of 1987. File 2
Produce all documents in this file except:
DF 6
DF 47
Any documents dated after November of 1987.
File 3
Produce all documents in this file except:
DF 149
DF 271
DF 273
DF 331-33
DF 365-69
DF 374
DF 1577-84
DF 1597-1600
DF 1980-86
DF 2656-86
DF 2658-61
DF 2684-85
DF 2693
DF 2695-98
DF 2733-34
DF 2736-51
DF 2782-83
DF 2795-97
DF 2807
DF 2814
DF 2822-23
Any documents dated after November of 1987.
File 4
Produce all documents in this file except:
DF 687
DF 919
DF 923
DF 1281
DF 1595-96
DF 1601-06
DF 1628-31
DF 1792-99
DF 1805
DF 2077-78
DF 2083-86
Any documents dated after November of 1987.
File 5
Produce all documents in this file except:
DF 886
DF 1622-26
DF 2117
Any documents dated after November of 1987.
File 6
No documents in this file need be produced.
File 7
No documents in this file need be produced.
File 8
Produce only the following documents in this file:
TM 223
May black-out all of this document excepttitle, date and distribution information.
TM 225
May black-out all of this document except" New Bolt Action Rifle" section, whichincludes 17 lines of text.
TM 226
May black-out all of this document except" Model 700 Classic" section, which includes12 lines of text.
TM 423
May black-out all of this document excepttitle, date and distribution information.
TM 425-26
May black-out all of this document except" Model 700 Mountain Rifle" and " NewBolt Action Rifle" sections.
TM 431
May black-out all of this document except" Mountain Rifle" section and authorinformation.
TM 610-11
May black-out all of this document excepttitle, date and distribution information and Paragraph8.
TM 615-16
May black-out all of this document excepttitle, date and distribution information and Paragraph8.
TM 623-24
Produce entire document.
TM 1534
Black-out all except date and first sentence.
TM 1537
Black-out all except sections on " M/700Stiff Safeties" and " M/700 Take DownScrews."
TM 1551
Black-out all except title, date anddistribution information.
TM 1553-54
Black-out all except sections on " M/700Stiff Safeties" and " M/700 Take DownScrews."
TM 5284
Black-out all except title, date anddistribution information.
TM 5285
Black-out all except title and first sentence.
TM 5287
Black-out all except entire section on "NBAR Status."
TM 5288
Black-out all except author andposition-title.
TM 5295
Black-out all except title and entire sectionon " NBAR," which is 17 lines of text.
File 9
Produce only the following documents in this file:
RR 54
Date and distribution information only.
RR 56
Black-out all except " Bolt Action RifleDevelopment" section.
RR 69
Date and distribution information only.
RR 72
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifles" section.
RR 89
Date and distribution information only.
RR 91
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifles" section.
RR 92
Black-out all except " Model 700Classic" section.
RR 93
Black-out all except " WarningRollmark" and " model 700" sections.
RR 95
Date and distribution information only.
RR 98
Black-out all except " Model 700Classic" and " Model 700 No-Bind"sections.
RR 100
Date and distribution information only.
RR 101
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifles" section.
RR 102
Black-out all except " Model 700Classic" section.
RR 106
Black-out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 118
Date and distribution information only.
RR 120
Black-out all except " Bolt Action RifleDevelopment" section.
RR 121
Black-out all except " Model Seven"section.
RR 122-23
Black-out all except " Model 700Restyle" section.
RR 135
Date and distribution information only.
RR 139
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifles" section.
RR 149
Date and distribution information only.
RR 150-51
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle," " Model 700 ADL" and "Model Seven" sections.
RR 154
Black-out all except first three sentences of" Automatic Fire Control" section.
RR 160
Date and distribution information only.
RR 161
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 168
Date and distribution information only.
RR 170-71
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" and " Model Seven" sections.
RR 239
Date and distribution information.
RR 241
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 243
Black-out all except " Model Seven"section.
RR 301
Date and distribution information only.
RR 306
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 317
Date and distribution information.
RR 318
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 346
Date and distribution information only.
RR 351
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 360
Black-out all except author reference.
RR 386
Date and distribution information only.
RR 388
Black-out all except heading " New BoltAction Rifle" and the second sentence of thefollowing paragraph.
RR 392
Black-out all except author reference.
RR 400
Date and distribution information only.
RR 402
Black-out all except first paragraph of "New Bolt Action Rifle" section.
RR 406
Black-out all except author reference.
RR 447
Date and distribution information only.
RR 449
Black-out all except first paragraph of "New Bolt Action Rifle" section.
RR 452
Black-out all except author reference.
RR 460
Date and distribution information only.
RR 462
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section, both paragraphs.
RR 465
Black-out all except author reference.
RR 468
Date and distribution information only.
RR 470
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 473
Black-out all except author reference.
RR 476
Date and distribution information only.
RR 483
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" New Bolt Action Rifle" section.
RR 488
Black-out all except author and datereferences.
RR 505
Date and distribution information only.
RR 512
Black-out all except first paragraph of "New Bolt Action Rifle" section.
RR 514
Black-out all except author reference.
RR 536
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation and three paragraphs of " NBAR"section.
RR 539
Date and distribution information only.
RR 540
Black-out all except " NBAR"section.
RR 542
Date and distribution information only.
RR 543
Black-out all except " NBAR"section.
RR 570
Date and distribution information only.
RR 576-77
Black-out all except paragraphs one, two andfour of " New Bolt Action Rifle" section.
RR 583
Black-out all except " NBARModeling" section and author and date references.
RR 620
Entire page.
RR 623
Date and distribution information only.
RR 625
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" NBAR" section.
RR 633
Date, heading and first two paragraphs of page.
RR 634
Date, distribution, heading, and first two paragraphsof page.
RR 658
Date and distribution information only.
RR 659
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 882
Entire page.
DF 1286
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1289
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1290
Author-initials and date references.
DF 1293
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1298
Black-out all except first paragraph of "New Bolt Action Rifle" section andauthor-initials.
DF 1311
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1312
Black-out all except heading, names and firstparagraph of " New Bolt Action Rifle" sectionand author-initials reference.
DF 1314
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1315
Black-out all except heading, names and firstparagraph of " New Bolt Action Rifle" sectionand author-initials.
DF 1332
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1338
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1345
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1348-49
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1357
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1362
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1368
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1371-72
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1373
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1377
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1379
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1386-87
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1394
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1395
Black-out all except seventh paragraph.
DF 1400-01
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1402
Black-out all except " Model 700BDL" section.
DF 1403-04
Black-out all except " Model SevenLightweight" section.
DF 1408
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1415-16
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1417-18
Black-out all except " Model SevenLightweight" section.
DF 1425
Entire page.
DF 1842
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1843
Black-out all except first fifteen lines of" NBAR" section.
DF 1845
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1846
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1849
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation and " NBAR" section.
DF 1852
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1853
Black-out all except " NBAR"section.
DF 1856
Black-out all except " NBAR"section.
DF 1858
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1860
Black-out all except " NBAR"section.
DF 1863
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1865
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" NBAR" section.
DF 1866
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1873
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" NBAR" section.
DF 1878
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
DF 1890
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1897
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" New Bolt Action Rifle" section.
DF 1899
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
DF 1902
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
DF 1906
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
DF 1909
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1916
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" New Bolt Action Rifle" section.
**Note: page DF 1917 is missing.
DF 1921
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
DF 1924
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1925
Black-out all except last heading and sectionentitled " Rifle Development."
DF 1929
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" New Bolt Action Rifle" section.
DF 1930
Black-out all except " Model 700Classic" section.
DF 1934
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 1398
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1399
Black-out all except fourth paragraph.
RR 1403-06
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle," " Model Seven Lightweight," andall three " Model 700" sections.
RR 1410
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1414-15
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle," " Model Seven Lightweight," and" Model 700 ADL" sections.
RR 1427
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1434
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifles" section.
RR 1435
Black-out all except first three paragraphs of" Model 700 ADL" section.
RR 1443
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1447-48
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifles" section.
RR 1450
Black-out all except " Model 700ADL" section.
RR 1451-52
Black-out all except first paragraph "Model Seven Lightweight" section.
RR 1456
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1461
Black-out all except " Model 7"section.
RR 1468
Black out all except author-initials and datereferences.
RR 1481
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1493-94
Black-out all except " Model 700 MountainRifle" and " New Bolt Action Rifle"sections.
RR 1494
Black-out all except " Model SevenLightweight" section.
RR 1495
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 1497
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1500-01
Black-out all except " NBAR," "Model 700 Mountain Rifle," and " Model SevenLightweight" sections.
RR 1512
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1517
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 1518-19
Black-out all except " Model SevenLightweight" section.
RR 1533
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1540-41
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 1542-43
Black-out all except " Model SevenLightweight" section.
RR 1548
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1555
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 1556
Black-out all except " Model SevenLightweight" section.
RR 1567
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1574-75
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 1576-77
Black-out all except " Model SevenLightweight" section.
RR 1582
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1588-89
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 1591-92
Black-out all except nine paragraphs of "Model Seven Lightweight" section.
RR 1606
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1611
Black-out all except " Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 1612
Black-out all except " Model Seven FloorPlate" section.
RR 1636
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1639
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" section.
RR 1640
Black-out all except " Model 700 MountainRifle" section and author-initials, datereferences.
RR 1641
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1645-46
Black-out all except " New Bolt ActionRifle" and " Model 700 Classic"sections.
RR 1649
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 1652
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1656
Black-out all except " New BoltAction" section.
RR 1659
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 1661
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1664-65
Black-out all except " Model 700 MountainRifle" and " New Bolt Action Rifle"sections.
RR 1666
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1670-71
Black-out all except " Model 700 MountainRifle" and " New Bolt Action" sections.
RR 1672
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1678
Black-out all except " Model 700 MountainRifle" and " New Bolt Action" sections.
RR 1685
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 1699
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1703-04
Black-out all except " Model 700 MountainRifle," " New Bolt Action" sections andauthor-initials reference.
RR 1719
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1724
Black-out all except " Model 700 MountainRifle" and " New Bolt Action" sections.
RR 1733
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 1736
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1741-42
Black-out all except " Model 700 MountainRifle" and " New Bolt Action" sections.
RR 1759
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1763-64
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" New Bolt Action," " Model 700Classic" sections, and author-initials reference.
RR 1767
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1774
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" New Bolt Action" section.
RR 1779
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 1782
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1789
Black-out all except " New BoltAction" section.
RR 1791
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 1794
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1801
Black-out all except first two paragraphs of" New Bolt Action" section.
RR 1806
Black out all except author-initialsreference.
RR 1810
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1816-17
Black-out all except paragraphs one, two andfour of " New Bolt Action" section.
RR 1823
Black out all except " NBARModeling" section and author-initials, datereferences.
RR 1832
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1833
Black-out all except " New BoltAction" section.
RR 1836-37
Entire document.
RR 1878
Date and distribution information only.
RR 1879
Black-out all except " NBAR"section.
File 10
Produce only the following documents in thisfile:
DF 544-45
Entire document.
DF 881
Entire document.
DF 1291
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1292
Black-out all except " New BoltAction," sections.
DF 1299
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation and " NBAR" section.
DF 1300
Black-out all except " Model 700Classic" section.
DF 1303
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation, paragraph one of " 700 MountainRifle" and " NBAR" sections.
DF 1304
Black-out all except Date and distributioninformation, " Model 700 Mountain Rifle"section.
DF 1305
Black-out all except " New BoltAction" section.
DF 1313
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation and " New Bolt Action" section.
DF 1316
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation and " New Bolt Action" section.
DF 1323
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation and " New Bolt Action" section.
DF 1325
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation and first two paragraphs.
DF 1326
Black-out all except " New BoltAction" section.
DF 1330
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation and " New Bolt Action" section.
DF 1350
Entire page.
DF 1443
Black-out all except Date and distributioninformation, " New Bolt Action" and "M/700 Classic" sections.
DF 1839
Entire document.
DF 1939
Date and distribution information only.
DF 1940
Black-out all except " New BoltAction" section.
DF 2001
Black-out all except first seventeen lines ofdocument.
DF 2011
Black-out all except first seventeen lines ofdocument.
DF 2012
Black-out all except date and distributioninformation and first three paragraphs of text.
RR 525
Entire document.
RR 529
Entire document.
RR 547
Entire document.
RR 558
Entire document.
RR 596
Entire document.
RR 598
Entire document.
RR 620
Entire document.
RR 621a
Entire document.
RR 629-30
Entire document.
RR 632
Entire document.
RR 634
Entire document.
File 11
Produce all documents in this file except :
DF 100
Black-out paragraphs four and nine.
DF 110
Black-out last section, including two paragraphs.
DF 890
Black-out title and following text.
DF 1465
Black-out first four words of second line of text andlines four through nine which encompass the secondsection.
DF 1530-33
DF 1812
Black-out last five lines of page which is entire lastsection.
DF 2017
Black-out lines ten through thirteen of text.
DF 2018
Black-out sentence beginning with the word "Extra."
DF 2019
Black-out line beginning with the word "Finishes."
DF 2503
Black-out last five lines of text.
DF 2504
DF 2505-06
DF 2978-93
File 12
No documents in this file need be produced.
File 13
Produce all documents in this file except :
DF 1429-31
Any documents dated after November of 1987.
File 14
Produce all documents in this file except :
DF 1156
Black-out all except last five lines of text.
DF 1158
Black-out all except first two lines and dateand distribution information.
DF 1160
DF 1162
Black-out all except date and last five linesof text.
DF 1163
Black-out last twelve lines of text.
DF 1166
Black-out all except date and last thirteenlines of text.
DF 1178
Black-out all except date and last fourteenlines of text.
DF 1179
Black-out all except date and first ten linesof text.
DF 1180
Black-out all except date and " BoltAction" section.
DF 1181
Black-out all except date and
DF 1182-83
Black-out all except date and " BoltAction" section.
DF 1184
Black-out all except date and " BoltAction" and " Model Seven Lightweight"sections.
DF 1185
Black-out all except date and " BoltAction" and " Model Seven Lightweight"sections.
DF 1186
Black-out all except date and " BoltAction" section.
DF 1187
Black-out all except date and " BoltAction" and " Model Seven Lightweight"section.
DF 1188
Black-out all except the twenty-sevenththrough thirty-third lines of text.
DF 1189
Black-out all except the twenty-second throughthirty-third lines of text.
DF 1190
Black-out all except the first three lines oftext and lines ten through seventeen of text.
DF 1218
DF 1224
DF 1259
DF 1265-67
DF 1270-71
DF 1273
File 15
No documents in this file need be produced.
Supplementary In Camera Submissions Attached to HuttonAffidavit
Produce only the following document in thisfile:
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RR 634
April 28, 1992
Before the Court is Defendant Remington Arms Co., Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the April 13, 1992 Order. On April 13, 1992, the Court ordered Remington to produce the documents designated in Appendix A. The Court further ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed protective order by April 23, 1992, for Court approval. Remington submitted the above-referenced motion on the April 23rd deadline, rather than the proposed protective order. The Court held a teleconference with the parties concerning the motion.
Remington's motion raises overall objections to the extent of Court-ordered disclosure and raises specific objections to certain documents. Remington states that it can provide the Court with a complete list of the objected documents, but that it needs " several days to compile this list since each document must be reviewed."
Remington has already had more than several days, in fact it waited until the last of the ten days provided by the Court Order to file the present motion. The Court has reviewed Remington's objections, both the general and specific objections. Some of the objections are well-taken and are provided further protection as noted below. Other objections are simply repeated and have been discussed extensively elsewhere. The Court has conducted considerable factual and legal analysis of the documents. The Court will not entertain any further motions for reconsideration.
Most of Remington's objections have been previously addressed. It must be remembered that Remington primarily has based its privilege from full disclosure on the contention that the in camera documents pertain to a new bolt action rifle (NBAR), which is still under development. Documents which concern the Model 700, the specific subject of this litigation, are not protected by that privilege. Where documents concerning the Model 700, the NBAR, or other Remington products address the problems or alternatives for triggers, bolt locks, and other mechanisms related to accidental discharge, plaintiff's need for many of those documents has been found to outweigh Remington's interest in their secrecy. For clarification, the Court notes that customer-sales analysis has generally been protected from disclosure, but where those documents contain discussions of prototype models and design options, that material has been ordered disclosed. Most documents which post-date the November 1987 injury and those which address costs have been protected from disclosure, but a few documents which reference the continuing research of the fire control and its priority level, cost considerations, and legal concerns in modifying the rifle mechanisms are relevant to plaintiff's claims and Remington's knowledge of feasible options. The documents are relevant and necessary. Yes, some of the documents to be produced are sensitive, but the parties' competing interests will be sufficiently protected by a protective order.
Conclusion
The Court makes the following modifications to its April 13, 1992 Order. It is hereby ORDERED that Remington's motion to reconsider is sustained in part and denied in part. It is further
ORDERED that the April 13, 1992 Order is modified in the following respects. Remington is required to produce the documents designated in Appendix A of the April 13, 1992 Order, as is modified by Appendix B which is attached to this Order. It is further
ORDERED that Remington shall file a joint protective order and produce all documents ordered to be disclosed to plaintiff within five (5) calendar days of this Order. The Court will not reconsider its ruling in this regard. A motion for reconsideration or any other form of objection will be an inappropriate response to this Order to file a joint protective order and produce the documents within five days. If the parties fail to file a joint protective order by the stated deadline, the delinquent party or parties will face potential sanctions. It is further
ORDERED that if defendant finds it absolutely necessary to raise a related issue, it must do so by requesting a telephone conference no later than three calendar days after entry of this Order. It is further
ORDERED that Remington file in camera with the Court copies of documents which have been noted as missing from the Court's files. These documents include DF 281, DF 716, DF 1012-13, and DF 1917. It is further
ORDERED that in future briefs which reference the in camera submission, the parties should designate in which file number the document may be found.
APPENDIX B
Remington Arms Co., Inc. shall produce for discoverythe documents noted in Appendix A, which isincorporated into the Court's April 13, 1992 Order.That Order is modified with respect to the documentsspecified herein.
File 2
The following documents need not be producedor specific information may be redacted as is noted.
DF 65
Need not produce.
DF 277
Need not produce.
DF 390
Need not produce.
DF 1116
Black-out paragraph 3.
DF 1123
Need not produce.
DF 1124
Need not produce.
DF 1125
Need not produce.
DF 1127
Black-out second sentence of first paragraph.
DF 1444-50
Need not produce.
DF 1543
Need not produce.
DF 1809
Need not produce.
DF 1810
Need not produce.
DF 2335
Black-out second sentence of first paragraph.
DF 2340
Black-out paragraph 3.
DF 2494
Black-out last seven lines of text.
DF 2837
Need not produce.
DF 2838-39
Need not produce.
File 4
The following documents need not be producedor specific information may be redacted, as is noted.
DF 151
Need not produce.
DF 153
Black-out only upper right corner, margin note.
DF 678
Black-out only second line.
DF 679
Black-out only title-heading.
DF 1506-07
Information about Model 870 or shotguns.
DF 693
Black-out last typed line.
File 5
The following documents need not be producedor specific information may be redacted, as is noted.
DF 161
Black-out last typed line.
DF 249
Need not produce.
DF 268
File 8
The following documents need not be produced.
TM 623-24
File 9
The following documents need not be produced.
RR 154
RR 633
File 11
The following documents need not be producedor specific information may be redacted, as is noted.
[** Note: DF 281 is missing from Court file.]
DF 625
Black-out only first four words of line 14.
DF 635
Black-out only first four words of line 14.
DF 657
Black-out paragraphs numbered 4 and 9.
DF 690
Black-out only first line topic.
DF 691
Black-out title-heading only.
[** Note: DF 716 is missing from Court file.]
[** Note: DF 1012 and DF 1013, discussed at page 7 ofRemington's motion, are not found in File 11.]
DF 2523
Black-out last five lines of text.
DF 2525
Need not produce.
File 14
The following documents need not be producedor specific information may be redacted, as is noted.
DF 1218
Need not produce.
ORDER
DF 1272
Black-out the line which includes three dollar figures.
May 5, 1992
The Court conducted a telephone conference on May 4, 1992. Pursuant to that conference, it is hereby
ORDERED that the documents specified in Appendix C, attached hereto, are protected from disclosure to plaintiff, as noted. It is further
ORDERED that the parties be prepared to discuss the protective order and production of documents in a telephone conference to be held at 1:00 p.m. on May 8, 1992.
APPENDIX C
Remington Arms, Inc. shall produce for discovery thedocuments noted in Appendix A, which is incorporatedinto the Court's April 13, 1992 Order, as ismodified by Appendix B in the April 28, 1992 Order, andas further modified herein.
File 2
Specific information in the following documents may beredacted as is noted.
DF 1487-89
Information about Model 870 or shotguns.
DF 1506-07
Information about Model 870 or shotguns.
PROTECTIVE ORDER
June 15, 1992
On April 13, 1992, this Court ordered Defendant Remington Arms Company, Inc. (Remington) to produce certain documents concerning the New Bolt Action Rifle subject to a protective order to be agreed upon by the parties. The April 13, 1992 Order has been amended by this Court's Orders of April 28, 1992 and May 5, 1992. This Protective Order applies to all documents reviewed by the Court in camera, found confidential and ordered produced under these Orders or any future Order of this Court.
The parties have been unable to agree on a proposed protective order. The Court has reviewed and compared the proposed protective orders submitted by plaintiff and Remington. The Court also has held lengthy teleconferences in which the parties expressed their concerns and needs for a Protective Order. The Court believes this Protective Order balances the parties' needs and is appropriate under the circumstances present in this case.
This Protective Order recognizes that Remington will produce documents which the Court has found to be trade secrets as set forth in prior Orders. This Order also establishes a procedure for making such documents and information available to counsel for use in this case, as well as in similar Remington bolt action rifle litigation, while at the same time protecting Remington's proprietary interest.
It is therefore ORDERED
1. That all documents, data, studies and other materials produced pursuant to any request for production, subpoena or other mode of discovery that have been or are found by this Court to be of a trade secret, privileged, proprietary or confidential nature (hereinafter Trade Secret information) shall be produced pursuant to the terms of this Order and shall be treated by all persons accorded access pursuant to this Order as Trade Secrets, containing confidential or privileged commercial and financial information. Access to the original Trade Secret information shall be made available to plaintiff only at the offices of counsel for Defendant Remington, by prearranged appointment as reasonably requested. The specific location where all documents produced under this Protective Order shall be reviewed is: Lathrop and Norquist, 2600 Mutual Benefit Life Building, 2345 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, 64108. Access to the original documents at the offices of counsel for Remington shall be provided only to counsel for plaintiff, Richard C. Miller, his co-counsel, and any attorney or paralegal who will assist in reviewing the original documents. All pages of all copies of documents provided to plaintiff's counsel pursuant to this Order or any future Order of this Court shall bear a clearly visible designation of " Confidential." Any failure of Remington to designate each page as " Confidential" shall result in a loss of protection for that page.
2. Remington's Index of documents submitted in camera shall be redacted to delete only descriptions of the contents and authors of those documents which the Court does not order Remington to produce. All other information regarding each document, including the page numbers and dates, shall be retained. Remington shall provide a copy of the index marked " Confidential" with the documents and information produced.
3. That this Protective Order shall apply only to those documents provided to the Court for in camera review in this litigation as set forth on Remington's Index, referred to previously. The Court's review of the indexed documents submitted in camera was thorough, complete and final, subject to the right of the parties to seek limited reconsideration of same as set forth below or extraordinary relief by appeal.
4. In light of the effort expended by this Court, the Court intends that its Orders be available in similar Remington bolt action rifle litigation and be adopted or modified to the extent determined appropriate by the presiding judicial authority and as is consistent with applicable law. Therefore, the following information from this litigation shall be made available to any other judge in similar Remington bolt action rifle litigation where counsel for plaintiff is a counsel of record: this Protective Order; the April 13, April 28, and May 5, 1992 Orders; any other Orders entered in this case; all information, briefs, and affidavits submitted to this Court in camera; and the complete unredacted index of in camera documents. This information shall be available to review, modify, or adopt in such litigation as any judge finds relevant and appropriate. Counsel for plaintiff may provide a copy of this Protective Order to any judge in such litigation and, where the judge requests the aforementioned information, this Protective Order facilitates defendant's disclosure of information from the present action to that other judge. It is, of course, the prerogative of any other judge to determine whether the litigation is similar, whether the information is relevant, and whether the information should be disclosed under the laws applicable in that litigation.
5. At the conclusion of the review of the Trade Secret documents produced, counsel for plaintiff shall provide counsel for Remington with a list designating those documents selected to be copied at plaintiff's expense. Within ten (10) days of receipt of this list, counsel for Remington shall provide counsel for plaintiff copies of the specific requested documents.
6. Counsel for plaintiff may also list and identify as specifically as possible without seeing them any other documents reviewed in camera which the Court did not order Remington to produce but which plaintiff, for good cause, believes should be produced. Within ten (10) days of receipt of this list, counsel for Remington will advise counsel for plaintiff of any objections to production of these documents. Copies of all documents, the production of which Remington does not oppose, shall also be provided to plaintiff within ten (10) days of the receipt of plaintiff's list. Counsel for plaintiff and counsel for Remington will confer in order to resolve any dispute over whether documents that were originally found to be absolutely privileged in the Court's initial in camera review should be produced. If complete agreement between counsel cannot be reached, plaintiff shall be permitted to file a limited in camera motion for reconsideration regarding those documents which plaintiff alleges should not be absolutely privileged. Counsel for Remington shall respond to this motion, likewise in camera within ten (10) days. Again, it is contemplated that counsel for the parties acting in good faith will reduce and limit the number of documents, if any, to be so handled.
7. That copies of Trade Secret information produced pursuant to this Order, as well as all transcripts, notes and records discussing same shall be available solely to plaintiff's counsel, his co-counsel, any member of their firms participating or assisting in this litigation and those persons retained as liability experts, either consulting or to testify, in this matter. No such expert retained by plaintiff may be an officer, director, or regular employee or ever have been a regular employee of any corporation, entity or person who is a manufacturer of bolt action firearms or a competitor of Remington in the firearms market. Because of the limitation on employment of plaintiff's experts by the firearms industry, Remington is prohibited in this matter from cross-examining plaintiff's liability experts on the lack of employment by a firearm's manufacturer or the firearms industry in general. However, plaintiff may make the Trade Secret information available to any liability expert retained by Remington or E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. in this matter as well as any Remington officer, director or employee, past or present. Each plaintiff's counsel shall be personally responsible for the co-counsel's and the expert's compliance with the terms of this Protective Order.
8. That prior to permitting access to Trade Secret information to any person as contemplated above, counsel for plaintiff shall require the person to whom disclosure is to be made to read a copy of this Protective Order and to certify in a written affidavit that he or she has reviewed this Order and consents to be bound by its terms. The affidavit so executed shall contain the signatory's full name, business address and employer, and the name of the litigation party with whom the signatory is associated. Such affidavit shall be served upon counsel for Remington before disclosure is made and if no written objection thereto is served upon counsel requesting same within ten (10) days then disclosure shall follow. Attached hereto as Exhibit " A" and incorporated by reference is the affidavit form for use in compliance with the terms of this paragraph. Counsel for each party shall keep a complete and current record of all persons to whom any Trade Secret information has been disclosed. If any Trade Secret information remains for a period of time in the possession of anyone but counsel of record under the terms of this Protective Order, counsel shall also list the items of Trade Secret information which each individual retains.
9. That all parties in possession of Trade Secret information pursuant to the terms of this Order shall notify Remington of their intent to use or present such information on the record whether by deposition, pleading, oral argument, or otherwise ten (10) days in advance of such use. If Remington objects to the proposed use of Trade Secret information, it must notify that party of its specific objections at least five (5) days in advance of such use. Counsel for the parties shall discuss any objections and if the parties cannot resolve the objections it shall be Remington's duty to arrange a telephone conference with the Court prior to the date of intended use. All transcripts and pleadings on this issue shall be filed in camera.
10. Disclosure of Trade Secret information in a deposition or a hearing in this matter shall be made only under the conditions that the material and that portion of any transcript related to same is then immediately placed under seal subject to further orders of this Court regarding its disclosure at trial or otherwise. Remington shall designate on the sealed record all material and any portion of transcripts which are sealed in this fashion and failure to do so results in a loss of protection for same. Remington shall obtain from each court reporter or other entity retained to record depositions or hearings all records of same, excluding the transcribed original and the parties' copies of same, and shall maintain all such records until the conclusion of all Remington bolt action rifle litigation in which the proceeding occurred.
11. That all persons who may be entitled to receive, or who are afforded access to any Trade Secret information by reason of this Order shall neither use nor disclose the Trade Secret information for purposes of business, competition, or any purpose other than the preparation for and conduct of this litigation as contemplated herein and shall keep the Trade Secret information secure in accordance with the purpose and intent of this Order.
12. That this Protective Order or any prior Order of this Court does not affect or control the discovery of any other documents in this or any other matters not reviewed by this Court in camera. The parties retain the right to question, challenge and object to the admissibility at trial of any and all documents, information and other evidence furnished under the terms of the Protective Order.
13. If any document or information is introduced into evidence in open Court or otherwise becomes a matter of public record, it shall lose its protected status under the terms of this Order. This Order shall in no way constitute a waiver of the rights of any party herein to contest any assertion or to appeal any finding that specific information is not Trade Secret information or should not be subject to the protective requirements of this Order.
14. That no later than ninety (90) days after completion of this proceeding and any related appeals, all Trade Secret information furnished under the terms of this Protective Order, including all copies and notes of same, which are not otherwise a matter of public record, shall be returned to counsel for Remington. Transcripts of any sealed depositions, hearings or trials that have not otherwise become matters of public record shall remain under seal, subject to further order of this Court.
EXHIBIT A
AFFIDAVIT OF ____________________
STATE OF ____________________
)
)
ss.
COUNTY OF __________________
)
1. My name is ________________________________________.I live at
(State Name)
________________________________________________. I amemployed as
(State Address)
________________ by_____________________________________________________________________________.
(State Position) (State Name and Address of Employer)
2. I am aware that a document and informationprotective order has been entered in John R. Hartman,Jr. v. Remington Arms Company, Inc., et al., Case No.90-4074-CV-C-5 in the United States District Court forthe Western District of Missouri, Central Division, anda copy thereof has been given to me.
3. I promise that the documents and information givenconfidential treatment under the protective order inthis case will be used by me only in connection withassisting counsel for the plaintiffs or defendants inpreparing for litigation of the above-captioned matter.
4. I promise that I will not disclose or discuss suchconfidential documents or information with any personother than the parties, and counsel for the parties ofmembers of their staff.
5. I understand that any use of the informationobtained by me from materials stamped "CONFIDENTIAL" or any portions orsummaries thereof, in any manner contrary to theprovisions of the protective order may subject me tosanction by this Court.
______________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary for and inthe above said State and County, this ________ day of_______________, 199___.
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
_______________________