Versata Software, Inc., et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 307

SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Ford Motor Company,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-10628-MFL-EAS
(consolidated with Case No. 15-cv-11624)

v.
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
Versata Software, Inc., f/k/a Trilogy
Software, Inc., Trilogy Development
Group, Inc. and Trilogy, Inc.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER
Pursuant to MCL §445.1906, the Court enters this Supplemental Protective
Order to preserve the secrecy of alleged Versata trade secrets at issue in this case.
Nothing in this Order constitutes a finding that the alleged trade secrets are trade
secrets under applicable law, or that Plaintiff Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) has
misappropriated them.
As reported to the Court by Ford, its practice is to obtain signed confidentiality
agreements from each of its employees, contractors, or agency employees that will
use or have access to the PDO software or its documentation. Therefore, the Court
orders that Ford shall obtain signed confidentiality agreements from each of its
employees, contractors, or agency employees that have used, will use, or have
received access to the PDO software or its documentation.

Each signed

confidentiality agreement shall contain confidentiality obligations no less restrictive
than Ford uses to protect its own confidential information. Ford shall provide a copy
of each confidentiality agreement to Versata in its document production.
If Ford is or becomes aware of an instance in which this a confidentiality
agreement has not been signed by an employee, contractor or agency employee who
has had access to the PDO software or its documentation, Ford shall immediately
disclose this to Versata and attempt to remedy this. Should Versata believe such an
event constitutes an actionable violation of this Supplemental Protective Order, it
may apply to the Court for such relief as is appropriate under prevailing law.
Should Versata so move, the Court will determine whether a violation of this
Order occurred and, if so, whether any sanction is appropriate based upon factors
such as (1) whether the violation was intentional, willful, reckless, or negligent; (2)
whether the violation put alleged Versata trade secrets at risk of disclosure, and if
so, whether the violation constituted a misappropriation of Versata’s trade secrets;
(3) whether Versata suffered any cognizable injury thereby; and (4) whether Ford
promptly reported and remedied the violation after it was discovered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 30, 2017

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on August 30, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3