Opinion
C. A. No. 06C-09-016-CLS.
Submitted: September 25, 2007.
Decided: January 29, 2008.
Upon Consideration of Plantiff's Motion to Compel: GRANTED, in part.
Matt Neiderman, Esquire, of Duane Morris, Wilmington, Delaware Matthew A. Taylor, James L. Beausoleil, Jr., Seth A. Goldberg, Christina E. Norland Audigier, Esquires, of Duane Morris, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Kevin F. Brady, Esquire, of Connolly, Bove, Lodge Hutz, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware Marc Sonnenfeld and Troy Brown, Esquires, of Morgan, Lewis Bockius, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Attorneys for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Introduction
The Court is asked to compel defendant to produce documents in this suit between business competitors. The Court reviewed the documents in camera and determines that several of the documents should be produced.
Background
Plaintiff alleges: (1) tortious interference with contractual relations, (2) unfair competition, and (3) misappropriation of trade secrets. During discovery, defendant provided documents responsive to plaintiff's request for production, but redacted portions of those documents on grounds of relevance. Plaintiff maintains that these documents are indeed discoverable.
Discussion
Superior Court Civil Rule 26(b) states that, "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Production of documents is encouraged, unless privilege is shown. In reviewing the documents, the Court was mindful of the claims and the fact that the parties are business competitors. The Court notes that, in its in camera review, the very first page contained a reference to Wright Medical representatives whose names and information had been redacted on grounds of relevance, this material is relevant and discoverable. The documents which must be produced are:
Davis v. Town of Georgetown, 2001 WL 541471 (Del.Super.) citing Papen v. Suburban Propane Gas Corp., 229 A.2d 567 (Del.Super. 1967).
• Z000594
• Z001027
• Z001734
• Z001844
• Z002141
• Z002266
• Z002282
• Z002283
Conclusion
Defendant is ordered to produce the above-identified documents to plaintiff.IT IS SO ORDERED.