Paradigm Alliance, Inc. v. Celeritas Technologies, LLC
In the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
Case Number 07-1121-MLB
Before Magistrate Judge Karen Humphreys
Decided on March 07, 2008

Relevancy of the Case: Granting of motions to compel information from other party after business relationship for development of web products ended

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff and the defendant entered a business relationship to develop a web-based product. During the sustenance of this relationship, the plaintiff provided confidential information to the defendant.
• Later, the plaintiff terminated the business relationship due to the defendant’s inability to develop the desired web application. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant used the plaintiff’s confidential information to file a patent.
• The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant attempted to gain unauthorised access to their protected computers. Moreover, the plaintiff has asserted nine claims against the defendant, while the latter has presented five counterclaims.
• The matter is before the court on the following five motions:
  • Defendant’s motion to compel regarding the plaintiff’s products,
  • Defendant’s motion to compel regarding trade secrets,
  • Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to an Interrogatory,
  • Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply and
  • Joint motion of the parties to modify the scheduling order.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The plaintiff’s counsel opposed the defendant’s motion by arguing that it developed those products after the end of the business relationship between the parties. The defendant’s discovery requests are not related to any claim or defence in this case.
• The defendant’s counsel argued that discovery requests concerning the plaintiff’s products were relevant to its counterclaim. The Reseller Agreement signed between the parties contains a provision governing the use of each party’s confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information.
• The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendant’s interrogatory answer was in conflict with its written submission to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

Opinion of the Bench

• The defendant’s discovery requests are reasonably within its breach of contract counterclaim.

Final Decision

• The court granted the defendant’s two motions and the parties’ joint motion while denying the plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply. As for the plaintiff’s motion to compel, it was granted in part.