Similarly, in the infringement action brought by Avery Dennison Corp., the parties argued against Minnesota Mining – Manufacturing Co. if an in-house lawyer or team of in-house lawyers were to have access to the highest level of confidential information. [27] The complainant wanted to limit the strictly confidential information to a single in-house lawyer, lest the lawyer, as an employee of the accused, abuse his trade secrets. [28] On the other hand, the defendant argued that limiting access to all but an in-house lawyer deprived it of «effective and effective representation». [29] The United Stated District Court for the District of Delaware agreed with the defendant and found that it was not necessary to limit the advanced information to an in-house lawyer and that the safeguards provided for in Rule 26, point c) of the federal civil proceedings regulation could provide the necessary protection. [30] The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut amended an existing protection order by adding this level of intermediate confidentiality. [22] Level 2 «limits disclosure of documents identified as such to external consultants, external experts and the three designated employees of each company.» [23] Although the court authorized and accepted the more limited disclosure of «only the eyes of lawyers», the court also showed, by imposing the least restrictive average level, that the client`s need for certain strictly confidential documents outweighed the opposing party`s desire to keep them entirely confidential by the opposing party. [38] See also GM Network Ltd. v. E-Gold Ltd. Case 01 Civ. 9621, 2002 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 9957 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (lawyer and expert on the applicant was only able to consult/verify the defendant`s source code with the defendant`s law firm and take notes, but was unable to copy the source code). Denise McClelland is a member of Frost Brown Todd LLC in Lexington, Kentucky. Ms. McClelland has more than 20 years of experience in commercial litigation, including more frequent issues related to trade secrets, unfair competition, non-competition agreements and trust obligations. A search of case law in which all ethical concerns about limiting the disclosure of trade secrets to the lawyer`s own client were discussed revealed that such an analysis was not complete.