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)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina · No. 5:21-cv-00251-BO · Doc. 75 · 2022-02-17 · Docket on CourtListener

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)