In a recent procedural order issued by the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC (UPC_CFI_819/2024), the Court rejected an application made by three co-defendants requesting a separation of proceedings into three distinct strands of litigation. The defendants, all having the same representative, filed the request on the grounds that their sensitive supply chain information would have to be disclosed in order to rebut the infringement allegations. It was argued that any exchange of confidential information amongst the competing groups of companies must be restricted to avoid conflict with European competition law.
The Court rejected this reasoning. The judge-rapporteur reasoned that any potential conflicts arose only from the fact that the defendants chose to be represented by identical counsel, and that it is the obligation of the representative to organise proceedings internally to avoid any conflict. A separation of the proceedings was declared as inappropriate, and the defendants were therefore invited to file a single statement of defence in one brief.
The Court of Appeal confirmed this decision, confirming that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the decision to not separate the proceedings (UPC_COA_423/2025). It was highlighted further that breaches of confidential information can be limited by means of internally redacting information, by restriction to specific persons, by agreement, or otherwise.
This decision confirms that UPC representatives are responsible for ensuring that confidential information does not pass between competing clients. Conversely, the Court will not necessarily guarantee a specific scheme to prevent such information leakage.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
