O  T  H  E  R      D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N  S  :

Staffbridge, Inc. v. Gary D. Nelson Associates, Inc. d/b/a Nelson Human Resources Solutions, 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 215
(June 11, 2004, 02-4912 BLS) (Van Gestel, J.).

Staffbridge, a software company, was hired to provide a workforce management program to the defendant, Gary D. Nelson Associates, Inc. (“Nelson”). Nelson claimed to be dissatisfied with Staffbridge and developed its own program. Staffbridge then sued Nelson claiming, among other things, that it had misappropriated Staffbridge’s trade secrets. In addressing various motions for summary judgment, further discovery, and to extend the tracking order, Judge Van Gestel held that Staffbridge’s prior

designation of its trade secrets was inadequate, but afforded it one more chance to make a sufficient designation.

“Both for the defendants to respond to the charges against them, and for the Court to make appropriate findings and rulings on the case, there must be a clear designation that distinguishes unique or proprietary material from the vast body of the ... program and source code, and apprises a person what trade secrets ... plaintiffs claim are to be found in [it]. That cannot be done on the present record.”

Dean Foods Company v. Pappathanasi, 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 216
(June 8, 2004, 01-2595 BLS) (Van Gestel, J.).

At a deposition, plaintiff’s counsel asked a lawyer who participated in drafting an opinion letter whether he would have done things differently if certain facts had been different. The deponent’s counsel instructed him not to answer on the grounds that these were hypothetical questions. Although Judge Van Gestel noted that the proper

procedure would have been to bring a motion for protection before the court, he denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel. “In the litigation setting, a hypothetical question does not seek facts but rather calls for an opinion by an expert witness.” As a fact witness, the deponent was not required to answer hypothetical questions.

JMK, Inc. v. Lee Imported Cars, Inc., 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 202
(June 4, 2004, 04-0944 BLS) (Van Gestel, J.).

Defendant Lee Imported Cars, Inc. (“Lee”) brought a special motion to dismiss pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 231, § 59H, contending that the Plaintiff’s claims were based solely upon another action in which Hilltop Gardens Investment LLC (“Hilltop”) had filed an appeal to the Land Court from a decision of the Norwood

Zoning Board of Appeals, relating to plaintiff’s plan to open a competing automobile dealership in Norwood. Judge Van Gestel denied the motion, holding that Hilltop and Lee were separate legal entities and Lee had failed to prove its connection to Hilltop.