Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Langdon A. HARTSOCK, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Sarah Mills Hartsock, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA LTD, a foreign corporation; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, a foreign corporation, Defendants–Appellants. Rubber Manufacturers Association; The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Amici Supporting Appellants, The Safety Institute; South Carolina Association for Justice, Amici Supporting Appellee.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America Ltd. and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company appeal a discovery order requiring their disclosure of certain trade secret material. After conducting oral argument, we certified the following question of law to the Supreme Court of South Carolina: “Does South Carolina recognize an evidentiary privilege for trade secrets?” Hartsock v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N.A. Ltd., 672 Fed. Appx. 223, 224 (4th Cir. 2016). In doing so, we explained that an affirmative answer to that question would lead to the applicability of South Carolina law to the underlying trade secret discovery dispute, id. at 226, and would warrant our vacating the discovery order and remanding the case for further district court proceedings, id. at 228. The Supreme Court of South Carolina has now answered the certified question, holding that “South Carolina does recognize an evidentiary privilege for trade secrets, but it is a qualified privilege.” Hartsock v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N.A. Ltd., 813 S.E.2d 696, 698 (S.C. Apr. 25, 2018) (2018 WL 1938540).
In light of the foregoing, we vacate the discovery order and remand for further proceedings consistent with our prior opinion and the opinion of the state supreme court.
VACATED AND REMANDED
PER CURIAM:
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-1172
Decided: May 24, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)