Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel

Filing 83

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. The Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel

Doc. 83

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION IN ADMIRALTY
ODYSSEY MARINE EXPLORATION, INC.

Plaintiff

: CIVIL ACTION
Case No: 8:07-CY-006l6-SDM-MAP

THE UNIDENTIFIED, SHIPWRECKED VESSEL , if any, its apparel, tackle appurtenances and cargo located within a five mile radius of the center point coordinates provided to the Court under seal
Defendant; in rem
and

The Kingdom of Spain
Claimant.

PLAINTIFF' S RESPONSE TO KINGDOM OF SPAIN' S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DECLARING CERTAIN MATERIALS AS NOT CONFIDENTIAL

This Response is an identical filing being made in cases 8:07-CY-06l4-SDMMAP , 8:07-CY-06l6-SDM-MAP , and 8:06-CY- 1685- SDM- MAP.

Plaintiff, Odyssey Marine Exploration,
undersigned counsel,

Inc. (" Odyssey

), by and through its
s (" Spain

submits this Response to Kingdom of Spain

) Motion

for an Order Declaring Certain Materials As Not Confidential (Dkt. 82), and in support
thereof states as follows:

MEMORADUM OF LAW
Particularity of Exact

Materials Designated as Not Confidential

Dockets.Justia.com

,"

,"

Spain has not met the initial burden of describing with paricularity on which
items it wishes the Court to determne the removal of the confidentiality designation

status.

Spain seeks to strke the confidential designations of photographs , arifact lists
artifact descriptions, and certain other documents provided by Odyssey" in Spain
Motion for an Order Declaring Certain Materials as Not Confidential.

See Motion , (Dkt.

85 Pg. 6). Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the Protective Oder Governing Disclosure of
Certain Information (Dkt. 82) (the "Protective Order ), the Protective Order allows Spain
to "apply to the Court for a determnation as to whether (a confidentiality) designation is
appropriate. "
Protective

Order (Dkt. 82). The determnation is particular to each and

every document and information designated as confidential "if a party believes that a document or information designated or sought to be designated confidential by the
producing party does not warrant such designation.
See Protective Order para. 8.

In keeping with the directions of the Protective Order, Spain need not reveal

confidential information to state with particularity items that Spain contests as

confidential. Spain can simply state that it wishes to contest the confidentiality of all
items in a general descriptive group, such as all photographs or all photomosaics.

Odyssey wil then demonstrate that such designation is proper by a showing of "good
cause " for the confidentiality.
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 26(

c). Odyssey cannot diligently

show "good cause" as to the need of confidentiality without knowing exactly which items

Spain objects to as being confidential. In stating in its Motion that Spain seeks to strike

the confidential designations of photographs , artifact lists, artifact descriptions, and
certain other documents provided by Odyssey," Odyssey must make an assumption as to

whether Spain wishes to contest all photographs, all artifact lists, and all artifact
descriptions provided thus far.

Spain contends that Odyssey has adopted a blanket confidentiality approach to the

materials given to Spain. Ironically, in seeking to "strke such ( confidentiality)
designations with respect to the photographs, artifact lists, artifact descriptions, and
certain other documents provided by Odyssey," Spain is applying a blanket approach

itself. Odyssey contends that it would be improper for the Court to grant Spain s Motion
for an Order Declaring Certain Materials as Not Confidential, because Spain has not

designated what items do not warrant the confidential status. Indeed, to uphold Spain
objection (as now formulated) would be tantamount to allowing Spain to challenge the
very propriety of the Protective Order it had voluntarily entered into earlier.

Finally, Spain asserts that "its counsel conferred with Odyssey s counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by this motion, but counsels were unable to

reach an agreement." (See Motion, Dkt. 85.)

This assertion

is false. Had counsel for

Spain conferred with Odyssey s counsel, counsel for Odyssey would have wilingly discussed the confidential status of each document.

II.

Reasons to Maintain the Confidentiality of Items given to Spain
Hearings

In Camera

Spain asserts that the public has a right to access civil proceedings, and that a

blanet confidential designation is generally impermissible. While this may generally be

tre, the public right to access is not absolute. "The discovery process, as a matter of
legislative grace, is a statutorily created forum not traditionally open to the public.
Giliam v. HBE Corp.,

2000 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 21914 (D. Fla. 2000). Furthermore, the

unique nature of this case and the general need for confidentiality of evidence involved to
assure the security of artifacts and of the Defendant Site would certainly suggest the

necessity of an in camera inspection by the Court before a ruling as to each piece of
discovery.

A pary may protect or limit discovery by demonstrating that the information sought is a
trade secret or confidential business information and that disclosure may be harmful.
Kaiser Aluminum Chem. Corp. v. Phosphate Eng'g Constr. Co.,

153 F.

D. 686

(M. D. Fla. 1994). A pary who resists production of trade secrets in Florida usually does

so under the state s statutory trade secret privilege, Fla. Stat. Ann. ch.

& 90. 506 .

Under

Florida law, when the trade secret privilege is asserted as a basis for resisting production
the court must determine whether the information constitutes a trade secret.

Del Monte
1323 , 1323-24 (D. Fla.

Fresh Produce Co.

v.

Dole Food Co. 148 F. Supp. 2d 1322,

2001). This determnation wil usually require that the trial court conduct an in camera
inspection of the materials in question to determine whether they contain trade secrets.
American Express Travel Related Servs., Inc.,

761 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000);

Also see

SaUck Health Care, Inc.,

722 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (finding the trial

court departed from the essential requirements of law when it compelled production of
documents alleged to be proprietary and confidential trade secret information without
first conducting an in camera

hearing and inspection and failing to make specific findings
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.,

of fact concerning the trade secret objections);

673 So. 2d

131 , 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The party resisting discovery has the burden to show

good cause" for protecting discovery by showing that the information sought is a trade

secret and that disclosure may be harful.

Del Monte Fresh Produce Co.

v.

Dole Food

Co. (f 1323. Odyssey wilingly accepts the burden to show "good cause " for protecting

confidential information

The Protective Order mandates the maintaining of confidential trade secrets in
paragraph 2 and 6.

See, Protective Order paras. 6 , 8. Additionally, certain discoverable

but confidential items produced to Spain have their own independent economic value

which is contingent upon their not being readily available to the public. An in camera
proceeding would be necessar to adequately evaluate Odyssey s designation as

confidential.

Artifact List, Pictures, and Video Tapes
The distribution and dissemination of intellectual property including photos and video from any Odyssey shipwreck or site is carefully controlled, as this is a key

component of Odyssey s business. No photos or videos have been released to the public

from any ofthe three sites that are currently under the Court' s jurisdiction. To have
photos or video leak out via the internet or other means would have severe financial

repercussions to Odyssey that could reach milions of dollars over the marketing lifecycle
of a project. These items are confidential because they embody "proprietar
research

" or

projected sales data" as those exclusions are referenced in the Protective Order.
The artifact lists provided to Spain by Odyssey are confidential because -- for
Spain s convenience -- Odyssey included in the artifact lists photographs which are
confidential. Again, had counsel for Spain conferred with counsel for Odyssey, Spain

Motion may have been unnecessary, and Odyssey could have produced an artifact list

without photographs or descriptions which go to the value of the items. Material , other

than the arifact lists, provided to date has all been photographs or videotapes compiled

by Odyssey which Odyssey expects wil

eventually be available

for licensing. Details of

the value of these materials can be provided to the Court if necessary.

All video and photographs taken by Odyssey and their crews or employees are

under copyright by Odyssey Marine Exploration and canot

be used

without permssion.

Odyssey is careful to protect its copyrght to all intellectual property. By allowing Spain
to release photos and video of the sites which Odyssey Marine Exploration has spent

milion of dollars fiming and photographing would cause significant financial harm to
Odyssey.

Details and Description of Items Recovered
As stated, Odyssey has provided Spain with a detailed list of artifacts recovered

from the Defendant Site that are in the company s possession. Furthermore, Odyssey has

offered Spain the opportnity

to view each and

every artifact and/or coin. The details and

descriptions of these items, however, necessarily go to their value. As such, this

information is confidential. The photographs of the artifacts and/or coins are intellectual property trade secrets, held by Odyssey, as discussed above. A trade secret is

information that derives independent economic value, actual or potential. A combination
of information can qualify as trade secrets, and does not automatically preclude

protection , even if some or all components are well-known.
Cola Co.,

Penalty Kick Mgmt.

v.

Coca

318 F.3d 1284 1292 (11

h Cir. 2003).

Odyssey respectfully requests this Court to deny Spain s Motion for an Order

Declarng Certain Materials as Not Confidential because the materials Spain is
contending are not stated with specificity. In the alternative , Odyssey requests this Court

hold an in camera proceeding to determne the status of particular items to which Spain
objects as being deemed confidential.
In good faith, Odyssey represents to the Court that although counsel for Spain has

not conferred with Odyssey regarding the substance of its Motion, Odyssey wil attempt to resolve the issue of confidentiality of specific discovery with counsel for Spain, prior
to bringing the issue before the Court.

Respectfully submitted

Dated:

February 8, 2008

s/ Allen von Spiegelfeld Allen von Spiegelfeld - FBN 256803 avonsp(ffowlerwhite. com Eric C. Thiel- FBN 016267 ethiel(ffow lerwhite. com FOWLER WHITE BOGGS BANKER P. O. Box 1438 Tampa , Florida 33601 [phone]
Facsimile: (813) 229- 8313

s/ Melinda J. MacConnel Melinda J. MacConnel- FBN 871151 Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. 5215 West Laurel Street Tampa , FL 33607 (813) 876- 1776 , ext. 2240 Fax: [phone] E-mail: mmacconnel(fshipwreck.net

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

HEREBY CERTIFY that on February

8 , 2008 , I electronically fied

the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Cour by using the CM/ECF system which wil send
notice of electronic fiing to James A. Goold, Covington

Burling LLP, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave. , NW, Washington, DC 20004; and David C. Banker, Bush Ross P. 220 S. Frankin Street, P. O. Box 3913 , Tampa, FL 33601 Attorneys for Claimant

Kingdom of Spain.

s/ Allen von Spiegelfeld Allen von Spiegelfeld - FBN 256803 avonsp(ffowlerwhite. com Eric C. Thiel- FBN 016267 ethiel(ffow lerwhite. com FOWLER WHITE BOGGS BANKER P. O. Box 1438 Tampa , Florida 33601 [phone]
Facsimile: (813) 229- 8313

s/ Melinda J. MacConnel Melinda J. MacConnel- FBN 871151 Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. 5215 West Laurel Street Tampa , FL 33607 (813) 876- 1776 , ext. 2240
Fax: [phone]

E-mail: mmacconnel(fshipwreck.net
Attorneys for Plaintiff