Mesa v. Atkins, Kroll (Guam) Ltd.

Superior Court of Guam

Mesa v. Atkins, Kroll (Guam) Ltd.

1 Guam 590

CourtSuperior Court of Guam

DecidedFebruary 26, 1979

DocketCivil Case No. 445-78

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Guam 590 (Mesa v. Atkins, Kroll (Guam) Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Guam primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mesa v. Atkins, Kroll (Guam) Ltd., 1 Guam 590 (superctguam 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

RAKER, Judge

DECISION

This matter came before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. Joan Baumgarten appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and Aurora Jose appeared for defendant, Citibank. The matter was heard before the Honorable John P. Raker and decision was reserved.

The Court finds that the scope of discovery is very broad, and that the burden is on the objecting party to show why discovery should not be permitted. See Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil §§ 2165 and 2176. The Court further finds that, although cases speak of trade secrets as being privileged, the privilege is, at best, only a qualified privilege which has been more readily applied to disclosure of valuable commercial [591]*591information rather than to disclosure of merely sensitive information. See Wright and Miller, supra, § 2020, n.56 and 57.

Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RAKER, Judge

DECISION

This matter came before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. Joan Baumgarten appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and Aurora Jose appeared for defendant, Citibank. The matter was heard before the Honorable John P. Raker and decision was reserved.

The Court finds that the scope of discovery is very broad, and that the burden is on the objecting party to show why discovery should not be permitted. See Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil §§ 2165 and 2176. The Court further finds that, although cases speak of trade secrets as being privileged, the privilege is, at best, only a qualified privilege which has been more readily applied to disclosure of valuable commercial [591]*591information rather than to disclosure of merely sensitive information. See Wright and Miller, supra, § 2020, n.56 and 57.

Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Guam 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mesa-v-atkins-kroll-guam-ltd-superctguam-1979.