If you think of a Möbius strip as a loop turning infinitely in upon itself, it might be an apt metaphor for the strange scenario playing out in federal courts in Minnesota and in Indiana where a company, Loparex, is doing battle on two fronts in litigation arising out of the acquisition of a business followed by a parting of ways of the acquired business’ executives (allegations of non-competition agreements, confidential business information, etc.).
Loparex produced documents to Minnesota adversaries under a protective order entered in Minnesota, produced documents to Indiana adversaries, again, under a protective order entered in Indiana, but, apparently, Loparex will not produce to the Indiana adversaries what it produced to the Minnesota adversaries (though the subject matters clearly overlap) and, further, has threatened the opposing Minnesota counsel with sanctions if he responds to a subpoena by counsel for the Indiana adversaries requesting Loparex’s documents.
Conveniently, Barnes & Thornburgh, the Indiana law firm involved, recently bought the Minneapolis Parsinen law firm.
Their memorandum in support of an “emergency motion” to enforce the subpoena is after the break (and here is Loparex’s response).
Loparex v MPI Release Mem in Supp M Enforce Subpoena