Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

DeRubeis v. Witten Techs., Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

April 20, 2007, Decided ; April 23, 2007, Filed

CIVIL CASE NO. 1:06-CV-807-JTC

Opinion

 [*678]  ORDER

This matter is currently before the Court on a number of discovery motions, including Plaintiffs Anthony DeRubeis and Maclyn Burns's motion to compel and for protective order [# 56], Defendant Witten Technologies, Inc.'s motion to compel [# 57], Plaintiffs' motions to quash [# 75, # 76], Defendant's motions to take depositions out of time [# 77, # 80], and Defendant's motion for extension of time to complete discovery of experts [# 89]. Also pending is Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file third-party complaint [# 60], Defendant's motion to strike [# 70], and Plaintiffs' motion for leave [**2]  to file excess pages [# 71].

I. Background

Defendant Witten Technologies, Inc. is a Florida-based company in the underground mapping and imaging industry. Witten's flagship product is the Computer Assisted Radar Tomography Imaging System ("the CART System" or "CART"), which uses ground penetrating radar and sophisticated software to find, identify, and create complex 3-D images of buried objects. The CART System is used, for example, by public utilities prior to digging in order to identify obstructions and therefore prevent the breaking of gas or water lines, etc.

Plaintiffs Anthony DeRubeis and Maclyn Burns were employed at Witten from 2000 to 2003. Plaintiffs began as engineers and were involved in the development of the CART System. Initially, they were part of a field crew that worked out logistical issues between the hardware and software components of the CART System. As a result of their involvement, Plaintiffs were included on a number of Witten patents directed to the CART System. In addition, DeRubeis and Witten were eventually promoted to Vice President of Operations and Vice President of Sales, respectively.

In 2003, due to a continuing dispute between [**3]  Witten and Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' employment with Witten terminated. 1 In 2004, Plaintiffs brought the instant action in Massachusetts state court for breach of employment agreement. Witten removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and counterclaimed for misappropriation of trade secrets. In a nutshell, Witten claims that Plaintiffs are using its trade secrets to compete in the industry. On March 30, 2006, the district court in Massachusetts transferred the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

244 F.R.D. 676 *; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30047 **

ANTHONY DERUBEIS and MACLYN BURNS, Plaintiffs v. WITTEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.

Subsequent History: Motion granted by, Summary judgment denied by, As moot, Motion denied by, As moot Derubeis v. Witten Techs., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131427 (N.D. Ga., Jan. 31, 2008)

Costs and fees proceeding at, Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Motion granted by, Motion denied by, As moot Derubeis v. Witten Techs., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131593 (N.D. Ga., May 20, 2008)

CORE TERMS

trade secret, discovery, misappropriated, disclosure, secret, motion for leave, confidential, processes, motions, motion to compel, particularity, Technologies, impleaded, software, courts, radar, misappropriation of trade secrets, protective order, counterclaim, third-party, parties, licensed, pages

Civil Procedure, Judicial Officers, Judges, Discretionary Powers, Discovery & Disclosure, Disclosure, General Overview, Discovery, Protective Orders, Relevance of Discoverable Information, Undue Burdens in Discovery, Privileged Communications, Evidence, Privileges, Trade Secrets, Scope, Pleading & Practice, Pleadings, Impleader