110 F.R.D. 363 (1986)
A contract existed between plaintiff soda manufacturers and defendant soda company, obligating defendant to sell syrup to plaintiff for the production of a cola. Plaintiffs sought defendant's disclosure of formulae pursuant to a protective order. Defendant denied the request, contending the need for secrecy outweighed compliance with discovery requests. Accordingly, plaintiffs moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), asserting violation of the discovery decision.
- The district court held that defendant's attempt to protect trade secrets was not "substantial justification" for willful defiance of a court's protection order.
- As a result, plaintiffs were awarded attorney fees and costs associated with their sanction motion.
- However, the court also held that in further litigation, defendant was not required to disclose the contents of the formulae where such evidence would lead to coercive settlement proceedings.
The District Court awarded plaintiffs costs and attorney fees associated with the pursuit of sanctions against defendant on the grounds that defendant's interest in protecting trade secrets did not "substantially justify" the breaching of a protection order.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.