This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

In a legal battle between two Utah-based soda shops, judges granted an order last week that bars one chain from using an attorney married to one of its co-owners and warns the other chain of withholding too much information.

Soda shop Swig's lawsuit filed last year asks for a court order barring competitor Sodalicious from using words and signs too similar to its, as well as unspecified damages.

In an Aug. 4 court appearance, Swig argued that Sodalicious' attorney Tessa Meyer Santiago should not see information designated as "attorneys' eyes only" because she could accidentally share Swig's sensitive financial information and trade secrets with her husband. Swig originally stated this complaint in a motion filed March 22.

But Santiago defended her position with Sodalicious, saying her husband only scouts new locations and isn't involved in day-to-day business decisions.

Having to hire a new lawyer would be unfairly expensive to the company, she said.

"I have no daily contact with anyone the in company," she said. "There's one attorney on the case because cost is an issue."

Swig lawyer Mark Bettilyon argued that finding new locations is a key part of both chains' rapidly growing businesses.

The close relationship could be a problem, Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead said in court, but he also noted that too many restrictions could also make the lawsuit unfairly costly for Sodalicious.

In the order filed last week, Santiago was forbidden from viewing the sensitive information, and Sodalicious was consequentially ordered to "retain separate counsel to review information designated as 'attorneys' eyes only.' " Further, the court ordered Sodalicious to submit amended requests for sensitive information, labeled as "attorneys' eyes only," from Swig.

The court order also contained a word of caution for Swig, ordering the chain to "undertake a thoughtful review of its documents" and redesignate documents that may be improperly labeled "attorneys' eyes only."

"If this court determines that swig has improperly designated information ... Swig may be required to pay Sodalicious' attorney fees," the order states.

The case is set for trial in August 2017.

Twitter: @mnoblenews

The Associated Press contributed to this story.