Sun Dial Corporation v. Fink

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the chancellor passed, after a pre-trial conference in an equity proceeding to enjoin the use of trade secrets by a former employee and for an accounting, upon the court’s own motion and over the objection of the complainants, directing that the trial “be separated into two ⁵⁵² parts to determine the following issues: 1. Do the Plaintiffs have a trade secret or trade secrets entitled to legal protection against the Defendants ? 2. If so, are the Defendants illegally using the trade secret or trade secrets of the Plaintiffs?” The order also denied a motion for inspection of the defendants’ business premises, inspection of certain answers to questions put to one of the defendants, theretofore required to be filed in a sealed envelope subject to further order of court, and discovery of certain documents, “without prejudice to the renewal of said requests after the trial of the case on the first issue”.

The court further ordered the president of one of the plaintiffs to answer questions in his deposition, relating to the details of the trade secret and secret processes and methods allegedly owned by the plaintiffs, within fifteen days, to be filed in a sealed envelope and copies made available only to the parties and their counsel. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which we granted in a per curiam opinion, after hearing argument. We now state the reasons for our action. It is, of course, a general rule that an appeal from an interlocutory order is premature.

Waverly Mut. Build. Asso. v. Buck, 64 Md. 338, 342 . This rule has been held to be applicable to rulings in connection with discovery.

Barnes v. Lednum, 197 Md. 398 ; Hallman v. Gross, 190 Md. 563 . Both of these cases distinguished the earlier case of Eastern States Corp. v. Eisler, 181 Md. 526 , relied on by the appellants here. In that case it was held that an order for discovery, passed at a time when the jurisdiction of the court had been challenged by demurrer and the case was not at issue, was an abuse of discretion. Whether we would follow the