« Joe and Lynn Land Dot Com | Main | Not quite Quixtar »
February 15, 2004
Is a Sea Lion a Seal?
By QBlog in
Here's an apparent copy of the Protective Order (pdf) from the P&G v. Amway case (Case No. H-97-2384) signed by United States District Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore on June 12, 1998. This document was obtained from PACER and is obviously part of the public record. What's interesting about this Protective Order is it seems to indicate that The Blakey Report is not a "sealed document" which is contrary to the claims made by the "alleged Amway lawyer."
I'm No Lawyer
I'm no lawyer (thank God) and legalese sends my journalist-trained mind into a tailspin. I've read through the Protective Order a few times and while I don't fully understand all of it (it seems like it just repeats itself over and over again) I do get the impression that "sealed" or Protected documents need to be labeled as "CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL." From page 2 we read:
(page 2) Documents and things produced without a legend designating the material confidential shall not be CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION subject to this Protective Order unless agreed by all Parties or ordered by this Court, or otherwise designated confidential in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 4 of this Protective Order.Clearly The Blakey Report is NOT marked CONFIDENTIAL, at least the copy I posted has no such designation. If it had such a marking, I would never have posted it. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a total fool.
There's also another interesting sentence in the Protective Order. From page one we read that documents are protected only if they contain "confidential financial, commercial, marketing or business information, trade secrets, know-how or proprietary data relating to financial, commercial, marketing business and other subject matter within the meaning of Rule 26(c)(7)."
After examining The Blakey Report I've read several comments from folks complaining that the Report doesn't really disclose anything that we don't already know or that it doesn't reveal any information that isn't already in the public domain. In fact, most commentors say that it's only Blakey's credentials that make the Report worth reading.
Was this sealed?
I really don't know if The Blakey Report is (or was) under a Protective Order. Just reading the Protective Order gives me the impression that it never was "sealed." The only person saying that it was sealed (to my knowledge) is a guy claiming to be an Amway lawyer on the telephone. I encourage you to wade through the 11 pages of legalese and make your own judgment about what is and isn't protected. Maybe some lawyers out there can give me their input. I'm just some goofy blogger trying to understand this crazy mess. Sometimes I feel a bit like Alice right after she tumbled through the looking glass.
Comments
I wouldn't worry too much about the lawyer. Seems like he is resorting to strong-arm tactics and empty threats because the law is not on his side. It's pathetic and "Brad" and his firm should be ashamed, but for many lawyers, this tactic seems to be standard MO when there is little or no legal recourse. Make threats and hope the person on the other end is either ignorant and scared and capitulates.
So, if "Brad" and or anyone from the firm calls again, tell them if they are going to take any legal action, go ahead, and you will only respond if and when that happens. Otherwise, you believe you are breaking no laws and you have found no appropriate seal order.
And for the record, seals and sea lions are closely related, but different animals. I think one has ears, and the other does not.
That's what I expected. There is nothing in the Blakey report that would be subject to protection or a sealing order. There couldn't be, it's just his opinions.
It's okay for a lawyer to call you up and ask if you'll reveal your source. But when you told him "no" and then he threatened legal action, that's when "Brad" crossed the line. It's apparent to anyone who reads the report that it contains no proprietary trade secrets or confidential information. Had "Brad" bothered to read the report before the called the operator of the "Kick Star Blog" he would have known that it was inappropriate to threaten to legal action over this document.
"Brad," his superiors, and Amway (if they had anything to do with it) ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: lawDawg | February 15, 2004 9:28 PM