|
Tag: Redirect target changed |
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{confianat|permitted disclosures}}
| | #redirect[[Permitted disclosures - NDA Provision]] |
| ==={{confiprov|Regulatory disclosure}} and the definition of {{confiprov|confidential information}}===
| |
| {{confidentiality and regulatory disclosure}}
| |
| {{regulator requests}}
| |
| ===Court proceedings===
| |
| Is it any different for court proceedings? Now, my friends, we are deep in anally retentive territory here.<ref>This may seem a rather unsavoury metaphor, but it seems apposite.</ref> If you should find yourself even broaching the question of what one must do when compelled by ''[[sub poena]]'' or court-mandated [[discovery]] to submit another fellow’s {{confiprov|confidential information}} into the hands of your combatants in connection with an unrelated civil proceeding, then the game is up, this is a [[I’m not going to die in a ditch about it|ditch you might, if you insist on it, die in]], and for the betterment of all you should really just surrender and move on, but for what it is worth, it ''is'' arguably different from a required disclosure to a regulator:
| |
| | |
| On one hand:
| |
| *A (third party) litigant may be the disclosing party’s competitor, and its intentions may not be as pure as driven snow — a disposition which one can (or has little choice but to) take as read for a regulator;
| |
| *The discovery request may thus be an abusive use of a court progress to fish out some commercial material. So one should be on one’s guard and ready to defend it, to the advantage of the disclosing party;
| |
| On the other hand:
| |
| *It is a compulsory legal process and, at the limit, you can’t stop it;
| |
| *A civil litigation between you and some other dude, even if it somehow involves the disclosing party’s {{confiprov|confidential information}}, is generally sensitive and may not be the sort of thing you want the disclosing party to know about: there is a “clash of the confidentialities” here
| |
| *As a litigant you will be generally incentivised to resist wider disclosure than is absolutely necessary and so shouldn’t need to have to promise this to the disclosing party. But it is not inconceivable that this confidential agreement ''is'' exactly the ammunition you need to shut down the litigation, so your interests may favour disclosure, while the “discloser’s” may not. You don’t want your confidentiality agreement to crimp your ability to show your best you to the court process.
| |
| When all is said and done, these are all ''extraordinarily'' remote and implausible hypotheticals. They neatly illustrate the fatuity of obsessing over the minutiae of an imponderable future, and it pains me to even talk about them. ''However'', it is in just such a fatuous neck of the woods that the [[legal eagle]] likes to build its nest so — unless you want to [[die in a ditch]] in that fatuous neck of the woods (some do; there is no accounting for taste) — you might just take a view and nod along.
| |
| | |
| {{ref}}
| |