TransPerfect Case Against Lionbridge Proceeds to Discovery

创博控告莱博智一案进入证据披露程序

2020-05-28 15:00 slator

本文共493个字,阅读需5分钟

阅读模式 切换至中文

The legal battle between the world’s two largest language service providers is heading into another round. In a lawsuit filed in April 2019, TransPerfect alleged that US rival Lionbridge had “acquired trade secrets and confidential information under false pretenses” during the court-ordered TransPerfect sale process in 2017; which it then proceeded to use to “unfairly compete” with TransPerfect. Or, as legal news website Law360 put it, the TransPerfect suit claims that Lionbridge owner H.I.G. Capital “pretended to be interested in buying rival TransPerfect Global at an auction in order to steal the company’s trade secrets.” Lionbridge moved to dismiss the case in June 2019, filing a motion in the Southern District of New York, stating that the TransPerfect complaint “offered no support to TransPerfect’s contention that the information it viewed in the bidding process had actually qualified as trade secrets.” TransPerfect amended its complaint to address Lionbridge’s motion; and, while US District Judge Denise Cote agreed to dismiss an allegation related to the “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,” the judge also stated that TransPerfect had “adequately alleged” the rest of its claims. Law360 quoted TransPerfect attorney Martin Russo as saying that they are “very pleased that the court permitted eight of our 10 claims — including theft and use of trade secrets and fraud — to proceed to discovery.” Discovery is a pre-trial procedure in which each party can obtain evidence from the opposing party through depositions, submission of documents such as email communication, etc. The court has scheduled a preliminary conference for late April where the parties will make initial disclosures of persons or entities with knowledge, documents and electronic information; and agree upon a schedule up to and including trial. Defendants Lionbridge and HIG have also been instructed to file answers to the Complaint by April 10th. A Lionbridge spokesperson told Slator that “Shawe’s suit is a fantasy, brought by a serial litigant who has been hit with numerous fines and repeated judicial warnings to stop abusing the legal system. While the court dismissed some of his frivolous allegations, we remain highly confident that we will prevail on any remaining claims that weren’t dismissed.” Responding to Slator, Phil Shawe said “When all other bidders dropped out or reduced their bids significantly, Lionbridge raised their bid to $900 million, and thereby garnered more access to our confidential documents and trade secrets. If this bid was legitimate, one must ask themselves why did the company sell to me for $775 million?” He added “But thankfully, the public need not take my word for it, Federal Judge Denise Cote already rejected all these statements in their entirety.” In a language industry context, the suit is relevant in that it continues to be a distraction for the two largest players in the Slator LSPI. Moreover, the discovery process will likely put on public record some of the inner workings of the two litigants, which will be of interest to other competitors as well.
全球最大的两家语言服务公司之间的法律纠纷正进入第二轮。 创博于2019年4月提起诉讼,指称同在美国的竞争对手莱博智在2017年法院下令创博出售过程中“以虚假借口获取商业秘密和机密信息”; 然后将其用来与创博进行“不公平竞争”。 或者,就像法律新闻网站Law360所说,创博的诉讼声称莱博智的所有者H.I.G Capital“在拍卖会上假装有意收购竞争对手创博,目的是窃取该公司的商业机密。” 2019年6月,莱博智动议驳回此案,在纽约南区提出动议,称创博的控告“不支持创博关于其在竞标过程中查看的信息属于商业机密的说法。” 为应对莱博智这一动议, 创博对其申诉进行了修改。此外,尽管美国地区法官丹尼斯·科特同意驳回一项与《计算机欺诈和滥用法案》有关的指控,但该法官还表示,创博对其余的指控进行了“充分的指证”。 Law360援引创博律师Martin Russo的话说,他们“非常高兴法院允许我们10项指控中的8项--包括盗窃和使用商业机密以及欺诈--进行证据披露”,披露是一种审前程序,双方都可以通过作证,提交电子等文件等方式从对方获取证据。 法院已安排4月下旬举行一次初步会议,双方将在会上初步披露知情人士或机构,文件和电子信息; 并就包括审判在内的审判时间达成协议。 被告莱博智和HIG也被要求在4月10日前提交对申诉的答复。 莱博智的一位发言人告诉Slator,“Shawe的诉讼是一个幻想,由他这个连环诉讼的当事人提起。他已经被罚款无数次并一再受到司法警告,要求停止滥用法律制度。尽管法院只驳回了他的一些无关紧要的指控,但我们仍然高度相信,其他未被驳回的指控我们仍会胜诉。” Phil Shawe在回应Slator时说:“当其他所有竞标者都放弃或大幅降低报价时,莱博智将他们的报价提高到9亿美元,从而获得了更多接触我们的机密文件和商业机密的机会。 如果这一报价是合法的,他们公司必须扪心自问,为什么要以7.75亿美元的价格卖给我?“他补充道,”但谢天谢地,公众不必相信我的话,联邦法官丹尼斯·孔特已经完全否定了所有这些说法。“ 在语言行业的背景下,这一诉讼具有相关性。因为它仍然是Slator LSPI中两个最大的参与者的一大困扰。 此外,这一揭露过程可能会记录两位诉讼当事人的一些内部运作,这也会引起其他竞争者的兴趣。

以上中文文本为机器翻译,存在不同程度偏差和错误,请理解并参考英文原文阅读。

阅读原文