A federal judge has imposed sanctions against a law firm for violating a protective order barring its lawyers from using confidential information from one photography copyright infringement case in another lawsuit against the same defendant.

In Grant Heilman Photography v. Pearson Education, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendant Pearson Education's request for sanctions against the law firm of Harmon Seidman Bruss & Kerr for violating the order barring disclosure of secret documents in public or in separate cases.

The sanctions involve attorney fees as well as an order requiring Harmon Seidman to track down and destroy the documents in question.

The law firm represents Grant Heilman Photography in the Pennsylvania case and another plaintiff in Yamashita v. Pearson Education in the District of New Jersey, according to Schmehl's opinion.

Pearson argued that the plaintiff's counsel expressed its intention to use documents from the Heilman case in the Yamashita lawsuit.

“[HSBK] affirmatively represented that these four documents filed under seal were in their possession, custody, or control and that they intended to use them to support their claims in the Yamashita action,” Pearson said in its motion to enforce the protective order.

Harmon Seidman countered, claiming it only used the documents internally but never planned to publicly reveal them, according to Schmehl. The firm also claimed the information was never revealed to the Yamashita litigants themselves or in any filing.

Further, the firm argued it was justified in using the information to establish Pearson's alleged pattern of patent infringement.

However, Schmehl rejected the firm's argument and found that the plaintiff's counsel stepped over the line, reasoning their conduct was more than “harmless, technical, and non-sanctionable.”

“Not only did HSBK allude to the existence of these documents, HSBK explicitly stated the documents 'might be used' in the Yamashita litigation and thus undercutting its own argument,” Schmehl said. “While HSBK's identification of the reports and summary documents of Pearson's confidential information appears to be harmless, 'the protective order did not permit HSBK to disclose Pearson's confidential Information to the Yamashita plaintiffs, as the Yamashita plaintiffs were not included in any of the seven categories of individuals for whom disclosure was authorized.'”

Schmehl also pointed to other instances in which Harmon Seidman was sanctioned for using confidential documents in the Yamashita case.

“Two other district courts—Arizona and Alaska—enforced similar protective orders after HSBK used Pearson's confidential information in Yamashita. Both courts concluded HSBK violated the terms of the protective order when it listed Pearson's confidential information in Rule 26(a) disclosures and represented the documents were in HSBK's possession and may be used in support of HSBK's claims or defenses,” Schmehl said.

Maurice Harmon, of Harmon Seidman in New Hope, did not respond to a request for comment.

David Marston Jr. of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius represents Pearson and also did not respond to a request for comment.