4-2. Discovery. Advance Technology Consultants, Inc. (ATC), contracted with RoadTrac, LLC, to provide software and client software systems for products using global positioning satel- lite (GPS) technology being developed by RoadTrac. RoadTrac agreed to provide ATC with hardware with which ATC's software would interface. Problems soon arose, however, and RoadTrac filed a lawsuit against ATC alleging breach of contract. During discovery, Road Trac requested ATC's customer lists and mar- keting procedures. ATC objected to providing this information because Road Trac and ATC had become competitors in the GPS industry. Should a party to a lawsuit have to hand over its con- fidential business secrets as part of a discovery request? Why or why not? What limitations might a court consider imposing before requiring ATC to produce this material? (See Following a State Court Case.) 4-3. Arbitration. Horton Automatics and the Industrial Divi- sion of the Communications Workers of America-the union that represented Horton's workers-negotiated a collective bargaining agreement. If an employee's discharge for a work- place-rule violation was submitted to arbitration, the agreement limited the arbitrator to determining whether the rule was rea- sonable and whether the employee had violated it. When Horton discharged its employee Ruben de la Garza, the union appealed to arbitration. The arbitrator found that de la Garza had violated a reasonable safety rule, but "was not totally convinced" that Horton should have treated the violation more seriously than other rule violations. The arbitrator ordered de la Garza rein- stated to his job. Can a court set aside this order from the arbi- trator? Explain. [Horton Automatics v. The Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 506 Fed. Appx. 253 (5th Cir. 2013)] (See Alternative Dispute Resolution.) 4-4. Discovery. Jessica Lester died from injuries suffered in an auto accident caused by the driver of a truck owned by Allied Concrete Co. Jessica's widower, Isaiah, filed a suit against Allied for damages. The defendant requested copies of all of Isaiah's Facebook photos and other postings. Before respond- ing, Isaiah "cleaned up" his Facebook page. Allied suspected that some of the items had been deleted, including a photo of Isaiah holding a beer can while wearing a T-shirt that declared "I [heart] hotmoms." Can this material be recovered? If so, how? What effect might Isaiah's "misconduct" have on the result in this case? Discuss. [Allied Concrete Co. v. Lester, 736 S.E.2d 699 (Va, 2013)) (See Following a State Court Case.) 4-5. Electronic Filing. Betsy Faden worked for the U.S. Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs. Faden was removed from her position in April 2012 and was given until May 29 to appeal the removal decision. She submitted an appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board's e-filing system seven days after the dead- line. Ordered to show good cause for the delay, Faden testified that she had attempted to e-file the appeal while the board's CHAPTER 4: Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution 117 system was down. The board acknowledged that its system had not been functioning on May 27, 28, and 29. Was Faden sufficiently diligent in ensuring a timely filing? Discuss. [Faden v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 553 Fed.Appx. 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014)] (See Courts Online.) 4-6. Business Case Problem with Sample Answer- Corporate Contacts. LG Electronics, Inc., a South Korean company, and nineteen other foreign com- panies participated in the global market for cathode ray tube (CRT) products. CRTs were components in consumer goods, including television sets, and sold for many years in high volume in the United States, including the state of Washington. The state filed a suit against LG and the others, alleging a con- spiracy to raise prices and set production levels in the market for CRTS in violation of a state consumer protection statute. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of per- sonal jurisdiction. Should this motion be granted? Explain your answer. [State of Washington v. LG Electronics, Inc., 185 Wash. App. 394, 341 P.3d 346 (2015)] (See Basic Judicial Requirements.) -For a sample answer to Problem 4-6, go to Appendix E. 4-7. Appellate, or Reviewing, Courts. Angelica Westbrook was employed as a collector for Franklin Collection Service, Inc. During a collection call, Westbrook told a debtor that a $15 pro- cessing fee was an "interest" charge. This violated company policy, and Westbrook was fired. She filed a claim for unemploy- ment benefits, which the Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES) approved. Franklin objected. At an MDES hear- ing, a Franklin supervisor testified that she had heard Westbrook make the false statement, although she admitted that there had been no similar incidents with Westbrook. Westbrook denied making the statement but added that, if she had said it, she did not remember it. The agency found that Franklin's reason for ter- minating Westbrook did not amount to the misconduct required to disqualify her for benefits and upheld the approval. Franklin appealed to a state intermediate appellate court. Is the court likely to uphold the agency's findings of fact? Explain. [Franklin Collection Service, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Employ- ment Security, 184 So.3d 330 (Miss.App. 2016)] (See The State and Federal Court Systems.) 4-8. Service of Process. Bentley Bay Retail, LLC, filed a suit in a Florida state court against Soho Bay Restaurant LLC, and its corporate officers, Luiz and Karine Queiroz, in their individual capacities. The charge against the Queirozes was for a breach of their personal guaranty for Soho Bay's debt to Bentley Bay. The plaintiff filed notices with the court to depose the Queirozes, who reside in Brazil. The Queirozes argued that they could not be deposed in Brazil. The court ordered them to appear in Florida to provide depositions in their corporate capacity. Witnesses appearing in court outside the jurisdiction of their residence are immune from service of process while in court.