Safe Flight Instrument Corp. v. Sundstrand Data Control Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that allegation that expert was uniquely qualified was speculative and that party had yet to investigate availability of outside experts
• collecting cases in which trade secrets were revealed only to opposing party’s trial attorneys and independent experts
• permitting defendant’s in-house counsel to review plaintiff’s confidential materials, noting that “defendant has represented to this Court that its in-house counsel involved in this litigation neither conduct scientific research nor prosecute patents”
• barring company president from access to the protective order, despite company’s argument that he was “uniquely qualified” to assess documents produced during discovery, and stating that party could find a qualified outside expert
• allowing attorneys’-eyes- only designation for confidential scientific documents regarding wind shear technology
• providing an overview of cases that had approved of such agreements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).