A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware

When I was maybe 12, my class took a trip to the public library and we were told to pick up books on our likely future careers. This was before blogs were invented, so I had to find something else. I ended up getting a book on electrical engineering and a book on screenwriting -- which I suppose adds up to within a rounding error of patent blogger.

I don't remember much of the electrical engineering (obvs) but I vividly recall the chapter on capturing your characters' vernacular. There was an example scene of a clandestine drug purchase, wherein the dealer refused to sell due to nearby police. Looking back, I think the author had a problem. It went like this:

Man 1: Hooooooorrrrrssseeeeee?

Man 2: Skag heck, the man dried it up.

- fin -

Again, I was 12 at the time so I can't vouch for how accurate this scene is. But ever since, it's come to mind as the absolute acme of subterfuge.

You wanna Join the mailing list?
You wanna Join the mailing list? Sergiu Nista, Unsplash

All this is to meander into the first case I've ever scene where the Court dealt with the disclosure of confidential government information. Spy stuff! sorta....

The info in Gemedy, Inc. v. The Carlysle Group Inc., C.A. No. 23-157-CFC-SRF (D. Del. Feb. 5, 2024) was not quite top secret. Or secret. Or even classified. It was down at the bottom of the secret barrell labelled "Controlled Unclassified Information." Nevertheless, the plaintiff objected to disclosing this information in discovery, arguing that under the relevant federal regulations it could only be produced in response to a Court Order.

Judge Fallon ordered disclosure, however, holding that a court order was not a necessary prerequisite for production:

Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden of showing good cause for the issuance of the proposed protective order placing conditions and restrictions on the production of CUL. As Plaintiff confirms, 32 C.F.R. § 2002.16(c)(l) provides that an authorized holder (in this case, Plaintiff) "must reasonably expect that all intended recipients have a lawful Government purpose to receive the CUI" before disseminating it. 32 C.F.R. § 2002.16(c)(l). The regulations define "lawful Government purpose" to include "any activity, mission, function, operation, or endeavor that the U.S. Government authorizes or recognizes as within the scope of ... the legal authorities of nonexecutive branch entities[.]" Furthermore, "non-executive branch entity" is defined to include "[e]lements of the legislative or judicial branches of the Federal Government[.]" Thus, Plaintiff may disseminate CUI to Defendants for the lawful government purpose of participating in the instant federal court proceeding.

Id. at 4.

Yet further tips for you budding spies out there.


If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.


Similar Posts