Comes v. Microsoft Corp.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed a district court order allowing Canadian plaintiffs to intervene in litigation against Microsoft and obtain access to discovery materials subject to the existing protective order. The court held that requests to modify protective orders should be evaluated by balancing the interests at stake, including reliance on confidentiality, legitimate business interests, judicial economy, and potential circumvention of discovery restrictions. It concluded that sharing the discovery with similarly situated Canadian litigants would avoid substantial duplication without compromising Microsoft's confidential information.

Holdings

1. A court deciding whether to modify a protective order must balance the interests at stake, considering the reasons for the original protective order, whether the parties' legitimate interests can remain protected, the opposing party's reasonable reliance, the interests of the party seeking modification, judicial economy and public disclosure where appropriate, and whether the request seeks to circumvent discovery or evidentiary restrictions in another jurisdiction. The court should fairly consider all circumstances and apply no presumption for or against modification.
2. The Canadian plaintiffs were entitled to access all documents and data produced in the Iowa litigation on the same terms as the Iowa plaintiffs because the modification preserved Microsoft's confidentiality interests, avoided extraordinary duplication of time and expense, and did not establish circumvention of Canadian discovery restrictions.
3. The district court properly modified the protective order to allow the Iowa plaintiffs to retain discovery materials until the related litigation in Arizona, Mississippi, and Canada was terminated.

Questions Presented

1. What standard governs a request by intervenors involved in similar litigation in another jurisdiction to modify a protective order and obtain access to discovery?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying the protective order to allow the Canadian plaintiffs access to the Iowa discovery under the order's confidentiality restrictions?
3. Did the district court properly allow the Iowa plaintiffs to retain discovery materials until the related Arizona, Mississippi, and Canadian litigation was resolved?

Disposition

affirmed