UPC CFI LD Milan, 23 July 2024: Confidential license agreement excluded from evidence
06-08-2024 Print this page
Confidentiality order (Rule 262A RoP). Document no. 37 (license agreement) excluded from evidence as it cannot be used by any of the parties.
3.3. Since this was a licence agreement concluded with a third party covered by a confidentiality clause, as mentioned above, covered by a confidentiality clause, the applicant was given the choice of either including the documents under examination among those falling within the scope of the litigation, subject to access to a club consisting also of a natural person of the defendant, or deciding to exclude such documents from the trial file.
With the caveat that, in the latter case, the documents could not be used by the defendant (who has so far only had access to them for the benefit of his defence counsel bound by the obligation of confidentiality, and only in order to be able to discuss the confidential or non-confidential nature of the documents and the composition of the club) either in this or any other proceedings.
This power was granted to the applicant in the light of the UPC's guideline on the protection of confidential information with particular regard to licence agreements containing a confidentiality obligation vis-à-vis third parties whose consent should possibly be obtained in advance (UPC 210/2023, 14.2.2024, Local Division Manheim), if the Court decides not to grant the confidentiality claim in whole or in part - as in the present case, with respect to the Club - it must be granted to the party that has filed the litigious documents that the same - although filed in the file - do not enter into the scope of the litigation and therefore:
- the Court does not take them into account;
-the other party may not use them either in the present proceedings or in others.
Following this interlocutory statement, the applicant stated that it intended to withdraw document No. 37. Himson did not file any further comments.
The Court therefore considers that document No. 37 should be excluded from evidence and that Himson's counsel - who examined it for the sole purpose of discussing its confidential nature - is prohibited from disclosing its contents to anyone - in any manner whatsoever - either in the present or in any other proceedings
