Opinion
C.A. No. K09C-02-030 JTV
09-29-2014
NEIL WALLACE, Plaintiff, v. GECKOSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and R. MARTIN SPENCER, Defendants.
Neil Wallace, Pro Se. Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendants.
Neil Wallace, Pro Se. Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esq., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendants. Upon Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Rule to Show Cause
DENIED
VAUGHN, President Judge
ORDER
Upon consideration of the defendants' Motion for Rule to Show Cause, the plaintiff's opposition, and the record of the case, it appears that:
1. The defendants, Geckosystems International Corp. and R. Martin Smith ("defendants"), and the plaintiff, Neil Wallace ("Wallace"), agreed to a confidentiality stipulation and protective order ("Confidentiality Agreement") which was signed by this Court on February 4, 2014. The Confidentiality Agreement prohibits disclosure and use of "confidential information or documents" except for express permissible disclosures.
Confidential information is defined as: "information contained in confidential documents and testimony, respectively." Confidentiality Agreement 1(C). Confidential documents is defined as: "any document that the producing party or a party to this action believes in good faith to contain confidential information and which bears the legend, or is otherwise designated. 'CONFIDENTIAL.' Among other things, all credit and/or financial records and/or business plans of the defendant shall be deemed 'Confidential.'" Confidentiality Agreement 1(B).
2. On March 5, 2014, the defendants filed a Motion for a Rule to Show Cause in relation to Wallace's alleged breach of the Confidentiality Agreement. The defendants claim that Wallace began disseminating confidential information on Yahoo!Finance. Wallace counters that the defendants failed to submit any evidence that he was the author of the Yahoo!Finance messages or that information disclosed in those messages or the motion to compel disclosed any confidential information or constituted a confidential document.
3. When evaluating a rule to show cause, the applicant carries the burden of proof, "the responsibility to show by the appropriate legal standard that a violation of the court order has occurred."
State ex rel. Oberly v. Atlas Sanitation Co., Inc., 1988 WL 88494, at *2 (Del. Ch. Aug. 17, 1988).
--------
4. I conclude that the defendants have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that Wallace has violated the court-ordered Confidentiality Agreement. The defendants did not demonstrate that Wallace disclosed or published any confidential information or confidential documents that would require sanctions or other remedies.
5. Therefore, the defendants' Motion for Rule to Show Cause is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. oc: Prothonotary cc: Order Distribution
File