The defendants, who were also plaintiffs by counterclaim, sought a confidentiality order requiring certain disclosed materials to be designated “for counsel eyes only.” They argued the information concerned confidential technical, marketing, customer, and financial data of a developing technology company and that disclosure could cause irreparable competitive harm.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that a discovery plan without confidentiality restrictions had already been executed and that the evidence of harm was speculative.
The court held that the existence of parallel Federal Court litigation with even stricter confidentiality protections justified comparable safeguards in the Superior Court proceeding.
The motion was granted and a confidentiality order issued.
