Order denying 70 Motion for Protective Order — Beringer Commerce, Inc. v. FIN Cap, Inc. (Dkt. 75, E.D.N.C. No. 5:21-cv-00251)

Summary

Order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in Beringer Commerce, Inc. d/b/a Blue Acorn iCi v. Fin Cap, Inc. d/b/a Blueacorn.co, No. 5:21-CV-251-BO, filed 02/17/22 as Document 75 (2 pages). The parties agreed to a protective order for the plaintiff's proprietary and confidential business information but disputed whether it needed a Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only designation. The court sided with the defendants, finding no trade secret claim and that the parties are not competitors, and called the plaintiff's suggestion that they may compete in the future too speculative. It denied the plaintiff's motion and said it will enter a protective order without the attorneys' eyes only designation.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
WESTERN DIVISION 
No. 5:21-CV-251-BO 
BERINGER COMMERCE, INC. d/b/a 
BLUE ACORN ICI, 
Plaintiff, 
V. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
FIN CAP, INC. d/b/a "BLUEACORN.CO"; ) 
BLUE ACORN PPP, LLC; BLUE OAK 
) 
FOREST, LLC; MICHAELS. COTA; 
) 
JAMES FLORES; STEPHANIE 
) 
HOCKRIDGE REIS; and NATHAN REIS, ) 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
ORDER 
This cause comes before the Court on plaintiffs motion for protective order with "Highly 
Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" designation. [DE 70]. Defendants have responded and the 
matter is ripe for ruling. 
The parties agree to the entry of a protective order to protect the proprietary and 
confidential business information of plaintiff. Defendants only contest whether it is necessary for 
the protective order to include a "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" designation. 
"When issuing a protective order, the court must balance the goal of full disclosure of 
relevant information against reasonable protection from economic injury." McAirlaids, Inc. v. 
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 299 F.R.D. 498, 500 (W.D. Va. 2014). Where a case involves "highly 
sensitive proprietary information" it is not uncommon to include a provision in a protective order 
limiting certain information to attorneys only. Progress Solar Sols., LLC v. Fire Prof., Inc., No. 
5:17-CV-152-D, 2018 WL 11281543, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2018). A critical factor to consider 
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO     Document 75     Filed 02/17/22     Page 1 of 2

in balancing full disclosure against reasonable protection is "whether the information would be 
disclosed to someone involved in competitive decision-making." Id. 
The Court agrees with defendants that no such designation is necessary in this case. There 
is no claim for misappropriation of trade secrets and, importantly, the parties are not competitors; 
plaintiffs assertion that the parties may become competitors in the future is too speculative to 
warrant the attorney-only designation in this case. Accordingly, and for those additional reasons 
outlined in defendants' memorandum, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion. [DE 70]. 
The Court will enter a protective order without the Attorney's Eyes Only designation upon 
submission. 
SO ORDERED, this _i_l_ day of February 2022. 
~{1~ 
UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
2 
Case 5:21-cv-00251-BO     Document 75     Filed 02/17/22     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nced.187990.75.0.pdf

Size

41,165 bytes

SHA-256

9343eba59c1ff3b4465bfe6df928badd563e084d36f968b3d2a4348934166a12

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nced.187990.75.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)