Loveall v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1985 |
| Citation | 694 S.W.2d 937 |
| Parties | John Howard LOVEALL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. and Honda Motor Company, Ltd., Defendants-Appellants. 694 S.W.2d 937 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Linda J. Hamilton, Charles B. Lewis, Knoxville, for defendant-appellants; Morton, Lewis, King & Krieg, Knoxville, of counsel.
Frances Lee Ansley, Sidney Gilreath, Knoxville, Robert Keeton, Huntingdon, for plaintiff-appellee.
William R. Willis, Alfred H. Knight, and Alan D. Johnson of Willis & Knight, Nashville, amicus curiae for Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n. of the United States, Inc. and the Product Liability Advisory Council.
Anne R. Grant, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae for of the Ass'n of Trial Lawyers of America.
This appeal presents the issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' request for a protective order in reference to confidential commercial information which plaintiff requested through interrogatories? We find that it did and that a protective order should have issued.
Plaintiff, John H. Loveall, is a paraplegic as the result of an accident which occurred while he was riding a Honda ATC-185, an all terrain cycle. Suit was filed in the Circuit Court for Knox County against the manufacturer of the vehicle, Honda Motor Company, Ltd., and its seller and distributor, American Honda Motor Company, Ltd., alleging strict liability and violations of express and implied warranties.
In the course of discovery, plaintiff submitted two sets of interrogatories to the defendants. Both requested information concerning the design, specifications, testing, developmental techniques, and component parts of the ATC-185. Defendants did not seek to deny plaintiff access to the requested information, but sought, instead, to have the court issue a protective order limiting the dissemination of the information by the plaintiff. The motion for the protective order was based on the confidential nature of the requested information. Attached to the motion was the affidavit of Ryoichi Shigenari, a senior staff engineer of Honda Research and Development Company, Ltd. (Honda R & D). The motion was denied, and a motion to reconsider was submitted. Attached to it was the affidavit of Osamu Takeuchi, another Honda R & D senior staff engineer. Both affidavits stated that the requested information was highly confidential, was closely guarded, had been developed solely by Honda R & D, and that competitors would benefit greatly from access to this information. No affidavits were filed by plaintiff.
The trial court denied the motion to reconsider, but did approve an interlocutory appeal. An interim protective order was issued for the pendency of the appeal after the trial court found that irreparable injury would be done to the defendants if the information was released and it was held on appeal that the protective order should have issued. The Court of Appeals did not accept the interlocutory appeal, and the appeal was then brought to this court.
The interim protective order, which was to become permanent if the defendants prevailed on appeal, stated:
1. Plaintiff and plaintiff's attorneys shall not give, show or otherwise, either directly or indirectly, divulge any competitively sensitive data produced by defendants ... in this action, or the substance thereof or any copies, descriptions, prints, negatives or summaries thereof, to any entity or person except plaintiff herein, any agents of or experts and consultants employed by plaintiff herein, in connection with and solely for this action.
All of plaintiff's experts and consultants were under the order, and all competitively sensitive documents were to be returned to defendants upon request at the conclusion of trial. Competitively sensitive data was defined as "information about defendants' business, products, practices or procedures, which, in the ordinary course of business, is not voluntarily disclosed by defendants to the public or to the third persons or entities who do not have a need to know." The order expressly covered any confidential information entered into evidence or proffered as evidence at trial.
Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 26.03 provides that a trial court, for good cause shown, may issue any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including "(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way;". This rule is substantially the same as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), and we will look to interpretations of that rule.
The decision whether or not to issue a protective order lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Centurion Industries, Inc. v. Warren Steurer and Associates, 665 F.2d 323, 326 (10th Cir.1981). Trade secrets and other confidential commercial information enjoy no privilege from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Tn v. Godsey
... ... Christian, a friend and former roommate and co-worker of the defendant, testified that the ... ...
-
Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher
...Catholic Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W.3d 22, 42 (Tenn.2005); Benton v. Snyder, 825 S.W.2d 409, 416 (Tenn.1992); Loveall v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 694 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tenn.1985). The abuse of discretion standard of review envisions a less rigorous review of the lower court's decision and a d......
-
First Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. First Tenn. Bank, N.A.
...Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W.3d 22, 42 (Tenn.2005) ; Benton v. Snyder, 825 S.W.2d 409, 416 (Tenn.1992) ; Loveall v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 694 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tenn.1985) ). Using this standard, we must uphold a lower court's decision unless we determine that it “applied an incorrect legal s......
-
Deuel v. The Surgical Clinic
...being sought are necessary" for such protection. Duncan, 789 S.W.2d at 561 (citing TENN. R. CIV. P. 26.03; Loveall v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 694 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tenn. 1985)). In denying the motion for a protective order, the trial court implicitly concluded that Dr. Geer had not made the req......
-
Protective orders, property interests and prior restraints: can the courts prevent media nonparties from publishing court-protected discovery materials?
...case and a general background on the subject of copyright, see Jacobson, supra note 181. (137) See Loveall v. American Honda Motor Co., 694 S.W.2d 937, 938-39 (Teen. 1985). (138) Id. at 940. (139) See Jacobson, supra note 131, at 486. (140) See Loveall, 687 F. Supp. at 356. (141) See id. at......