If an adversary says that they think their employee manual is a trade secret, and the plaintiff only needs to know if the manual contains instructions for dealing with a situation like the trial, they may not be worth the time to judge whether the manual is actually a trade secret or not before obtaining a copy in the discovery. In such cases, as in a case of falling and slipping, the lawyer can usually agree on conditions without the participation of the court. On the other hand, asserting that a customer list is a trade secret is sometimes the central element of the case, as when the claim constitutes a violation of a non-competition clause. In these cases, the strategy to have the case resolved by the Tribunal may be a necessary step in proving a case. When it comes to file maintenance, an electronic watermark, a unique Bates number number or stamp is most convenient on any confidential document or statement associated with any answer to a question. However, unless there are doubts as to compliance with this provision, it is not necessary to specify this in the agreement. If they are not included in the agreement or order, a statement in a cover letter that certain categories of documents are to be treated confidentially may sometimes be technically sufficient. This may not be ideal in many situations, as there is then nothing on the document itself that would let a party know if it is confidential or would require permanent referencing against an index. A confidentiality clause in a compromise agreement prevents the outgoing worker from discussing the agreed terms for his withdrawal. The confidentiality agreement often also extends to the employer.
As a result, both parties are prevented from discussing the terms of the agreement reached. There are obvious reasons for this, as it gives the parties greater maneuverability when one knows that the agreement is secret. In Mother-in-Law v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the court must “weigh the necessity of the plaintiff`s discovery against the violation that might occur if uncontrolled disclosure was forced.” Id. at 787. In addition, the parties` confidence in the appointment is a relevant factor in deciding to “modify an existing confidentiality order”. Id. at 789 (highlighted in the original). When applying the balancing test set out in Pansy and analysing the interests of confidence of the parties concerned, the Court must take into account “the extent to which the injunction led the party to detect or settle it”. Id. at 790, cited Beckman Indus., Inc.
v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. . . .