Amazon argues that U.S. courts favor plaintiffs
Amazon cited a growing trend among attorneys to corner niche markets by suing specific corporations.
Attorneys representing Amazon.com Inc. in an appeal — seeking enforcement of a protective order on confidential and alleged insurance policy trade secrets — allege trial courts favor plaintiff lawyers.
They also suggest that opposing counsel have made a cottage industry of using overly broad discovery to gather information for other lawsuits against the tech and retail giant.
The Third District Court of Appeals in Austin denied Amazon’s petition for writ of mandamus with a single sentence order that limited its rationale to the rule of appellate procedure stating the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
The underlying case concerns a driver, Jordan Sannicola, for a third-party trucking company contracted by Amazon to deliver packages, and a fatal traffic accident.
According to a San Marcos Police Department investigation report cited by Amazon, Iliana Velez, the deceased, merged in an unsafe manner, causing the accident.
The Velez family sued Amazon and the trucking company with a wrongful-death claim.
Rotating judges
Arguing for Amazon, Kelley Clark Morris of Wright Close & Barger complained that during the discovery process, a Travis County district judge, Catherine Mauzy, signed a confidentiality and protective order.
Because of Travis County’s rotating docket system, hearings involving the case have been before four district judges.
After the deposition of an Amazon representative, plaintiff attorneys with the Hilliard Martinez Gonzales firm in Corpus Christi opposed an Amazon motion to redact portions of testimony and evidence the company claimed were confidential and protected.
Judge Madeline Connor of the 353rd District Court heard, but did not decide the issue, opting to take it under advisement and rule later.
Referring to the transcript, Amazon claimed Connor was leaning in the company’s favor, stating Amazon had invested heavily in its insurance policies.
“If it’s just open and out there, people can use it as a template to compete against Amazon,” Connor said. “This is how they shift the burden here to the contractor or they shift the burden to the — you know, it seems to me that — that maybe it is a trade secret.”
However, when the motion was decided, the judge presiding was Jessica Mangrum of the 345th District Court. Amazon objected before and during the hearing about the case not being heard by Connor who was familiar with the facts.
Mangrum declared Amazon’s insurance policies and testimony about them are not confidential, and Amazon must reproduce the documents unredacted.
Mangrum also declared Amazon’s proprietary software and testimony about it is not confidential.
Niche legal market?
According to Kwartler Manus, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania law firm not related to the case, Amazon gives delivery partners “Amazon Commercial Auto Insurance” for liability coverage, provided they already carry personal insurance coverage and the driver is making an active delivery during the accident.
Amazon complains there is a growing trend among plaintiff attorneys to corner niche markets by suing specific corporate defendants by gleaning inside knowledge through expansive discovery in other litigation.
Plaintiff attorney Alex Hilliard advertises special expertise in “car wrecks connected to Amazon,” claiming the law firm’s “system for identifying and destroying Amazon’s defenses that you can use in an trucking case,” the Amazon petition said.
“Trial courts like (Mangrum’s) enable these strategies that benefit only the lawyers and provide little benefit to the litigants themselves. The trial court’s declaration … creates a dangerous precedent of trial courts substituting their own judgment for the definitions set forth in a standing protective order, entered to protect the use of discovery materials outside the instant litigation,” the petition said.
Emphasizing the sensitive nature of its “unique insurance structure,” Amazon said only six employees out of 1.5 million have access to the policies and those six signed confidentiality agreements.
Comment was requested from Amazon attorneys Barger and Bradley Snead, but they did not respond.
The Hilliard attorneys for the plaintiffs also did not respond to requests for comment.
Related: