Powerweb Energy, Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc. et al

Filing 208

ORDER granting #200 Motion for Reconsideration and adhering to previous decision. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 9/17/2013. (Garcia, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
POWERWEB ENERGY, INC.
v.
HUBBELL LIGHTING, INC. AND
HUBBELL BUILDING AUTOMATION,
INC.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. NO. 3:12CV220 (WWE)

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION [DOC. # 200]
In this action, the plaintiff, Powerweb Energy, Inc.,
accuses defendants, Hubbell Lighting, Inc. and Hubbell Building
Automation Inc., of breaching licensing contracts and of
misappropriating trade secrets and confidential information in
connection with wireless lighting controls. [doc. # 1]. For the
reasons that follow, the Motion for Reconsideration [doc. # 200]
is GRANTED, and the Court adheres to its previous decision.
Defendants move for reconsideration of this Court’s August
22, 2013 ruling that a July 19, 2010 email from Terry Arbouw to
Eric Weber is not privileged. Defendants argue that there is no
indication in the Court’s ruling whether it considered
circumstantial evidence that Arbouw knew that the e-mail
communication with Weber was part of Hubbell’s confidential
efforts to provide information necessary for the provision of
legal advice.

To be clear, the Court considered all of the

evidence submitted by defendants, direct and circumstantial, and
finds that defendants have not met their burden of showing that
Arbouw’s communication was intended to be and was, in fact, kept
confidential and made for the purpose of obtaining or providing
legal advice. Defendants cite to evidence that Weber testified
that the communication was privileged in nature and that Arbouw
was familiar with the patent process, including submission of
the IDS, in support of their position that Arbouw understood
that the July 19 email was part of an effort to obtain legal
advice. However, the testimony from Arbouw himself undermines
the notion that he knew the information sought was for inclusion
in an IDS as part of a legal process to patent the technology.
Arbouw’s unrefuted testimony is that he does not know what “IDS
is”.
The Court did not require direct testimonial evidence from
Arbouw to establish privilege. Rather, Arbouw’s testimony that
he does not even know what IDS is, contradicts the argument that
the “circumstantial evidence” shows that Arbouw knew that his
communication was part of the confidential legal process to
patent the technology at issue.
Conclusion
For these reasons defendants’ motion for reconsideration
[doc. # 200] is GRANTED and the Court adheres to its previous
2

Ruling. This is not a Recommended Ruling. This is a discovery
ruling or order which is reviewable pursuant to the “clearly
erroneous” statutory standard of review. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2.
As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified
by the district judge upon motion timely made.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 17th day of September 2013.

__________ /s/_____________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3