Kenneth D. Hanna

This costs endorsement addressed two prior motions in a commercial action involving confidential technology documents and discovery management.

The court held that the defendants were entirely successful on their protective order motion and awarded them partial indemnity costs, while reducing the amount sought because the use of four lawyers created some duplication.

On the plaintiffs' motion concerning a discovery plan, further and better affidavit of documents, and case management, the court found mixed success because some relief advancing the litigation was granted but core discovery-plan relief was refused as premature.

Costs of that motion were ordered to be in the cause.

The plaintiffs moved for a discovery plan, further documentary production, and case management in a commercial dispute involving confidentiality obligations and alleged independent creation of a product.

The court held that a contested discovery plan should not be imposed before pleadings and related procedural motions were finalized, and emphasized that parties must first make meaningful efforts to agree on a plan under Rule 29.1.03.

The court gave procedural guidance on motions required to compel discovery from non-parties or additional witnesses, ordered preservation and third-party document-request steps, and directed that no examinations for discovery proceed until a plan was agreed or ordered.

Given the complexity of the disputes and the parties' inability to cooperate, the action was assigned to case management.

In a commercial dispute alleging misappropriation of confidential information concerning a remote municipal water shut off system, the defendants moved for a protective order governing confidential and highly confidential productions.

The plaintiffs attempted to withdraw prior consent after the defendants designated a very large volume of documents as highly confidential and unavailable to the receiving party.

The court held that consent could not be arbitrarily withdrawn absent evidence of mistake, surprise, or lack of authority, none of which was established on the record.

The protective order was therefore granted, with the court emphasizing that any challenge to particular highly confidential designations had to proceed under the challenge mechanisms built into the order.