Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv—0O023-JJF Document 146 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DOW CHEMICAL CANADA, INC., :
Plaintiff & Counterclaim E
Defendant :
v. ; C.A. No. 05-23 JJF
HRD CORPORATION, E
Defendant & Counterclaim ;
Plaintiff :
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Dow Chemical Canada
Inc.'s Motion to Compel Regarding HRD's Trade Secrets (D.I. 114).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny this Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2005, Plaintiff Dow Chemical Canada, Inc. (“Dow") filed
suit against Defendant HRD Corporation (“HRD") over a contract
dispute involving the development of polythylene waxes. (D.I. 1)
HRD counterclaimed against Dow, alleging that Dow misappropriated
HRD trade secrets. (D.I. 15.) HRD filed a Second Motion to
Compel Production of Documents and for Sanctions in July 2007
(D.I. 95) which the Court granted in part and denied in part on
January 18, 2008 (“January 2008 Order") (D.I. 121). Dow filed
the pending Motion to Compel Regarding HRD's Trade Secrets
(“Motion to Compel") on January 10, 2008. (D.I. 114.)

Case 1 :05-cv—00023-JJF Document 146 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 2 of 4
II. PARTIES CONTENTIONS
By its Motion to Compel, Dow contends that HRD provided
insufficient answers to Interrogatories 3 and 4, which sought the
identity of each HRD trade secret and the manner in which Dow
allegedly misappropriated each trade secret, respectively.
Specifically, Dow contends that HRD’s answers failed to support
at least two essential elements of a trade secret claim because:
1) HRD did not point to any information that is a trade secret;
and 2) HRD did not point to any evidence Providing the basis for
its misappropriation allegations.
In response, HRD contends that its answers were sufficient
given the stage of the proceedings and the limited information
Dow had provided when responding to HRD’s written discovery
requests. HRD contends that many exact details concerning Dow’s
alleged misappropriation of trade secrets are not within their
possession and control due to “massive redactions" in documents
produced by Dow. (D.I. 117 at 1.) These redactions were the
subject of HRD’s July 2007 Second Motion to Compel Production of
` Documents and for Sanctions. (D.I. 95.) Because this discovery
is not yet complete, HRD further contends that Dow’s Motion to
Compel regarding Interrogatories 3 and 4 is premature.
III. DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, “[p]arties may
obtain discovery of any matter, not privileged, that is relevant
2

Case 1 :05-cv—OO023-JJF Document 146 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 3 of 4
to the claim or defense of any party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Evidence is discoverable if it is reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. ld. A party seeking
discovery may move for an order to compel if an opposing party
fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3).
However, if any interrogatory “asks for an opinion or contention
that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, . . . the
court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until
designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference,
or some other time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2).
The Court concludes that Dow’s Motion to Compel will be
denied at this time. In its January 2008 Order, the Court found
that the discovery documents provided by Dow were extensively
redacted, and accordingly, it ordered Dow to submit specific
explanations for the redactions to HRD so that the relevance of
the information could be determined. (D.I. 121 at 3.) Dow was
also ordered to provide such explanations to HRD within ninety
days. In light of the Court’s findings in the January 2008
Order, the Court accepts HRD’s assertion that it sufficiently
answered Interrogatories 3 and 4 given the information then
available to HRD. Further, the Court concludes that HRD should
be given the opportunity to review the discovery compelled in the
January 2008 Order, and to supplement its Answers to
3

Case 1 :05-cv—O0023-JJF Document 146 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 4 of 4
Interrogatories 3 and 4 if necessary. Accordingly, Dow’s Motion
to Compel Regarding HRD’s Trade Secrets will be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Dow
Chemical Canada, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Regarding HRD’s Trade
Secrets is DENIED.
April 22, 2008 TE STAT DISTRICT JUD E
4