In Re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 3968, 313 S.W.3d 910, 2010 WL 2104001 (2010)
Rule of Law:
When a party asserts a trade secret privilege over discovery materials, the burden shifts to the requesting party to demonstrate with specificity that the information is genuinely necessary for a fair adjudication of their claims, beyond mere relevance or general assertions of unfairness.
Facts:
- Maria Del Rocio Rodriguez and other plaintiffs were involved in a head-on collision with Dustin Langstaff.
- The plaintiffs allege that the tread separated from the right rear tire of Langstaff's vehicle, a Weather-Master S/T tire manufactured by Cooper Tire.
- The plaintiffs sued Cooper Tire for strict liability, design defect, manufacturing defect, marketing defect, and negligence.
- The plaintiffs allege that Cooper Tire failed to incorporate belt edge gumstrips (BEGs) into the design for the Weather-Master S/T, asserting that BEGs would have resulted in a safer alternative design.
- The plaintiffs sought documents from Cooper Tire regarding a different tire, Green Tire Spec (GTS) 2257, to show when BEGs were added and removed and the circumstances of tire failures with and without BEGs.
- Cooper Tire objected to producing the GTS 2257 documents, arguing they contained confidential trade secrets and were not relevant to the case.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs moved to compel production of the GTS 2257 documents in the 127th District Court of Harris County, presided over by Judge R.K. Sandill.
- The trial court ordered Cooper Tire to produce the responsive documents for an in camera review.
- After conducting the in camera review, the trial court signed an order compelling Cooper Tire to produce the documents to the plaintiffs, finding them relevant but not addressing the trade secret claim.
- Cooper Tire, as relator, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), seeking to compel Judge Sandill to set aside his order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by compelling discovery of documents proven to contain trade secrets when the requesting party has not specifically demonstrated that the information is necessary for a fair adjudication of their claims?
Opinions:
Majority - John S. Anderson
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by compelling discovery of documents proven to contain trade secrets when the requesting party has not specifically demonstrated that the information is necessary for a fair adjudication of their claims. The court explained that Texas Rule of Evidence 507 provides a privilege for trade secrets, balancing the protection of valuable property interests with the importance of fair adjudication of lawsuits, requiring disclosure only if necessary to prevent “fraud” or “injustice.” First, the party asserting the trade secret privilege, Cooper Tire, successfully met its burden to prove the documents qualified as trade secrets by satisfying five of the six factors, which included evidence of measures taken to guard secrecy, the high value of the information to Cooper Tire and its competitors, and the difficulty of duplication. The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to prove the information was necessary for a fair adjudication of their claims, not by general assertions, but by demonstrating “with specificity exactly how the lack of the information will impair the presentation of the case on the merits to the point that an unjust result is a real, rather than a merely possible, threat.” The plaintiffs argued necessity to prove a safer alternative design (by showing BEGs reduced tread separations in other tires) and to establish actual knowledge for punitive damages. The court found these arguments insufficient, noting that the plaintiffs already possessed other documents discussing BEGs and that demanding trade secrets for punitive damages lacked specificity. Because the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessity of the trade secret information for a fair adjudication of their claims, and Cooper Tire would not have an adequate remedy by appeal if privileged trade secrets were improperly disclosed, the trial court abused its discretion by compelling production.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens the protection of trade secrets in discovery proceedings, particularly in Texas product liability litigation. It establishes a high bar for parties seeking to overcome a properly asserted trade secret privilege, requiring them to demonstrate with specific, compelling evidence that the information is indispensable for a fair resolution of their case, rather than merely relevant or generally helpful. This ruling helps prevent 'fishing expeditions' into a company’s proprietary data, especially for products not directly at issue in the lawsuit, and reinforces the principle that the value of trade secrets is protected unless their disclosure is absolutely essential to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
