Rel: 12/1 2/2014

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter

. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions , Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ( ( 334) 229-0649), of any typographical or o t h e r errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter

.



# SUPRE ME CO URT O F ALA BAMA

OCTOB ER TE RM, 2 014-2 015

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 11308 40

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Ex pa rte R obert Bosc h LLC

PETIT ION F OR WR IT OF MAND AMUS
(In r e: D oroth y Kil go, i ndivi duall y and as p erson al repre senta tive of th e Est ate o f Ern est R onald Kilg o, Jr ., decea sed

v.

Donni ce Mi lam S mith et al .)

(Etow ah Ci rcuit Cour t, CV -11-9 00399 )

MAIN, Just ice.11308 40

One of the defen dants below , Rober t Bosch LLC ("Bos ch"),
petit ions this Court for a w r i t of manda mus direc ting the

Etowa h Circu it Court ("the trial court ") to vacat e or, in the

alter nativ e, to amend the provi sions of its order grant ing the

reque st fo r pro ducti on of Bosc h's " air b ag sy stem Elect ronic

Contr ol Unit" ("ECU ") filed by the plain tiff below , Dorot hy
Kilg o ("Kil go"), indiv idual ly and as the perso nal

repre senta tive of the estat e of Ernes t Ronal d Kil g o , Jr.,

decea sed. We g rant the p etiti on an d iss ue th e wri t.

I. Fa cts a nd Pr ocedu ral H istor y

On March 17, 2011, Kilgo and h e r h usban d, Ernes t Ronal d
Kilgo , Jr. ("Ron "), were passe ngers in a 2008 PT Cruis er motor

vehic le that Ron's steps on was d r i ving in Etowa h Count y.

While they were waiti ng for an oncom ing motor vehic le to pass

throu gh an inte rsect ion s o tha t the y cou ld ma ke a left turn,

the Kilgo s' vehic le was str u ck from behin d by anoth er motor

vehic le. The i mpact of t hat c ollis ion p ropel led t he Ki lgos'

vehic le into the inter secti on, where it was struc k head- on by

an oncom ing motor vehic le. Ron, who was sitti ng in the front

passe nger- side seat, suffe red sever e injur ies and died sever al
days later as a resul t of those injur ies. The front

211308 40

passe nger- seat air bag faile d to deplo y durin g eithe r the rear

or the head- on colli sions , and the front passe nger- side seatbelt "pret ensio ner," which is suppo sed to cause the seat belt

to "lock " immed iatel y after a colli sion, did not acti v ate.

Howev er, one of the two front drive r-sid e air bags deplo yed

durin g the colli sions , and the front drive r-sid e seat

- b e lt

prete nsion er wa s act ivate d as well.

In Septe mber 201 1 , K i lgo filed in the trial court a

wrong ful-d eath compl aint, namin g sever al defen dants ,
inclu ding, among other s, Bosch , who desig ned and manuf actur ed

the ECU in the Kilgo s' vehic le. Somet ime there a fter, Kilgo

serve d a notic e of takin g the depos ition of a corpo rate

repre senta tive of Bosch

. The d eposi tion notic e inclu ded

numer ous topic s for which testi mony a n d d ocume nts were

reque sted. Item no. 5 o f the depos ition notic e reque sted

"[t]e stimo ny and docum ents r elati ng to the algor ithms which

are u sed t o dep loy t he su pplem ental rest raint syst ems o f the

2008 Chrys ler P T Cru iser, incl uding , but not limit ed to , the

air bags and seat- belt prete nsion ers" (here inaft er refer red to

as "the algor ithm" ). Bosch filed a resp o n s e objec ting to
Kilgo 's depos ition notic e and moved for a prote ctive o rder

311308 40

with regar d to sever al of Kilgo 's reque sts for produ c t ion,

inclu ding Kilgo 's re quest for the a lgori thm. In t he mo tion,

Bosch argu ed th at th e alg orith m is a tra de se cret and, thus,

Bosch said , pro tecte d fro m dis cover y und er Ru le 50 7, Al a. R.

Evid. ; Rule 26(c) (7), Ala. R. Civ. P.; and the Alaba ma Trade

1 2

Secre ts Ac t, Al a. Co de 19 75, § 8-27 -1 et seq.

Rule 507, Ala. R. Ev id., provi des: 1

"A perso n has a privi lege, which may be claim ed by the perso n or the person 's agent or emplo yee, to refus e to discl ose and to preve nt other perso ns from dis c l osing a trade secre t owned by the perso n, if the a l l o w ance of the privi lege will not tend to
conce al fraud or other wise work i njust ice. If discl osu r e is direc ted, the court shall take such prote ctive measu res as the inter est of the holde r of t he privi lege and of the parti es and the inter est s of ju stice requ ire."

Rule 26(c) (7), Ala. R. Ci v. P. , pro vides : 2

"Upon motio n by a party or by the perso n from whom disco very is sough t, and for g ood cause shown , the court in which the actio n is pendi ng or, alter nativ e l y, on matte rs relat ing to a depos ition
or produ ctio n o r inspe ction , the court in the circu it where the depos ition or produ c t i on or inspe ction is to be taken may m a k e a ny order that justi ce requi res to prote c t a party or perso n from annoy ance, embar rassm ent, o p press ion, or undue burde n or expen se, inclu ding

... that a trade secre t
or other confi denti al resea rch, devel opmen t, or
comme rcial inf o r matio n not be discl osed or be discl osed only in a desig nated way ...."

411308 40

Bosch suppo rted its motio n for a prote ctive o r der with

t h e affid avit of Matth ew Coon, Bosch 's "Dire ctor of
Engin eerin g for Airb ag ECU devel opmen t." In his affid avit,

Coon state d, in pert inent part :

"5. The Algor ithm (refe rred to as 'the Algor ithm' ), and relat ed subro utine s, are a set of mathe mati cal calcu latio ns and logic al steps that the micro proce ssor of the ECU goes throu gh to o perat e the ECU. P r o priet ary softw are insid e the ECU runs and emplo ys the Algor ithm. Both the softw are and the Algor ithm are highl y pr o p r ietar y and uniqu e to Bosch

.
"6. The Algori thm sough t by [Kilg o] is an extre mely confi denti al trade secre t that provi d e s B osch a compe titiv e advan tage over other compa nies in the autom otive restr aint syste m indus try. The Algor ithm and infor matio n relat ed t o it are owned solel y by Bosch and, to Bosch 's knowl edge, they are not known by anyon e o u tside of Bosch , espec ially Bosch 's compe titor s, excep t as descr i b e d in parag raph 8 bel ow. Only certa in Bosch emplo yees on the proje ct team have acces s to t h e Algor ithm. Bosch deriv es indep enden t econo mic value , actua l and poten tial, becau se the i n forma tion is not known to other perso ns or comp anies

.
"7. To my knowl edge, th e A l gorit hm has not been produ ced or discl osed to any feder al, state or local agenc y, nor has i t been produ ced or discl osed in
conne ction with civil litig ation o r any court proce eding , or to an y Bos ch cu stome r.

"8. I have knowl edge about the secur ity contr ols in place at the compa ny to ensur e that the Algor ithm is prote cted from discl osure by unaut horiz ed perso ns. Acce s s t o these docum ents is tight ly contr olled insid e the compa ny. A s mall numbe r of Bosch

511308 40

emplo yees have acces s to the infor matio n. Only those Bosch emplo yees who need to know the infor matio n to perfo rm their jobs have acces s to t he infor matio n. Withi n Bosch , acces s to this infor matio n is limit ed elect ronic ally to certa in desig nated emplo yees to
ensur e it is not disse minat ed to any p e r s o n or entit y out side Bosch

.
"9. Bosch is heavi ly engag ed in a n d commi tted to
resea rch and devel opmen t of new desig ns and perfo rmanc e for the ECU. Discl osure of the Algor ithm and docum ents relat ed to the Algor ithm would allow other perso ns to take advan tage of Bosch 's exper tise and e xpend iture s in new p roduc t dev elopm ent.

"10

. B osch has spent over 25 years devel oping algor ithm s like the one reque sted by [Kilg o]. Over those years , Bosch has spent hundr eds of milli ons of dolla rs resea rchin g, desig ning, and devel oping and prote cting a l g o r ithms like the one reque sted by [Kilg o]. Bosch has emplo yed scien tists , engin eers, and progr ammer s to resea rch, desig n, and devel op this infor matio n. The Algor ithm canno t be
ascer taine d or deriv ed from publi cly avail able infor matio n.

"11. The autom otive restr aint syste m indus try is a very compe titiv e indus try. Compa nie s such as Bosch and its compet itors stand to gain or lose liter ally hundr eds of milli ons of dolla rs each year based upon the desig n and pro d u c t i o n of state of the art produ cts such as Bosch 's ECUs, which incor porat e the Algor ithm like t h e one in the subje ct ECU. If data and infor matio n conta ined in do c ument s relat ing to its algor ithms were to be discl osed outsi de of Bosch , those who obtai n such inf o r matio n would be
a ble to under stand the scien tific and engin eerin g thoug ht and desig n proce sses emplo yed by Bosch when desig ning, progr ammin g, and build ing its ECUs. By suppl ying this confi denti al and secre t infor matio n, Bosch would effec tivel y be provi ding [Kilg o's] exper ts with a bluep rin t to build their own

611308 40

compe titiv e versi on of Bosch 's ECU. Whi le [Kilg o] and her couns el may not actua lly posse ss the tools
or the know l e d g e to const ruct their own ECU, [Kilg o's] exper ts most certa inly do and would stand to gain finan ciall y if provi ded with the Algor ithm.

"12. If Bosch were order ed to discl ose t h e above docum ents and data i t would , in effec t, hand over the resul ts of years and milli o n s of dolla rs worth of inter nal resea rch and devel opmen t at Bosch 's sole cost. If Bosch 's Algor ithm were to be discl osed outsi de of Bosch there is no quantif iable amoun t of money that c ould compe nsate Bosch for the loss of
reven ues, profi ts, jobs, and compe titiv e advan tage it would suffe r as a resul t of the disse minat ion of this infor matio n and these desig n proce sses. Not only would the discl osure of this infor matio n cause Bosch to suffe r compe titiv e disad vanta ges, it would enabl e any recei ving party to unfai rly and unjus tly recei ve a treme ndous finan cial windf all, gain, and profi t from the posse ss ion and utili zatio n of this propr ietar y inf ormat ion."
Kilgo filed a respo nse objec ting to Bosch 's motio n for a
prote ctive orde r, ar guing , in part:

"12. The resul ts of the Decem ber 6 , 2013[ ,] testi ng [of t h e Kilgo s' vehic le] showe d that the passe nger airba g did n o t deplo y and the passe nger seat belt 'pret ensio ner or tensi oner' did not deplo y

-- fully expla ining how [Ron' s] body was allow ed to conta ct the forwa rd inter io r areas of the subje ct vehic le. The elect rical conti nuity tests thems elves estab lishe d that the wirin g and elect rical syst e ms of the vehic le were f u n c tioni ng prope rly. Upon visua l exami natio n of the passe nger airba g canni ster itsel f, the canni ster appea red to be equip ped with
a n a i r bag and no obvio us defec ts of the actua l airba g wer e dis cover ed. .

..

711308 40

"13. The airba g syste m compo nents manuf actur ed

by Rober t Bosch [] LLC are inten ded to s e n s e and deplo y [sic] crash es which can cause signi fican t injur y to occup ants of vehic les like th e s u bject vehic le. Thes e senso rs are locat ed in the forwa rd secti ons of the vehic le and are c onnec ted direc tly to the 'ECU. ' The ECU is a compu ter devic e conta ining m icrop roces sors which have been progr ammed (with the use of mathe matic al algor ithms ) to deplo y the suppl ement al restr aint syste m airba gs and seat belt tensi oners in the event a deplo yment crash is d etect ed. .

..
"14. Durin g the subje ct crash of March 17, 2011, there was parti al deplo yment of the drive r air b a g syste m and the drive r seat belt prete nsion er. There
was no deplo yment of stages 1 or 2 of the passe nger airba g or passe nger seat belt prete nsion er. .
..
"15. Due to t h e condi tion of the vehic le's suppl ement al restr aint syste m post- accid ent, it is appar en t that the ECU and/o r senso rs faile d to prope rly deplo y the passe nger seat belt prete nsion er and stage s 1 and 2 of the passe nger airba g. This direc tly point s to the failu re of the crash sensi ng syste m and the algor ithms which discr imina te and defin e the crash condi tions neces sary for deplo yment of the safet y devic es used to prote c t occup ants of the s ubjec t veh icle.

...
"16. The desig n o f the crash sensi ng algor ithm and the speci fic calib ratio n used to calib rate th e
senso rs with the algor ithm are reaso nable inqui ries in this parti cu l a r case to deter mine wheth er the algor ithms and crash sensi ng calib ratio ns were defec tive, thus makin g the ECU defec tive in its role in deplo yment of the suppl ement al restr aint syste ms in th e sub ject Chrys ler P T Cru iser. " 3

Bosch claim s that the algor i t h m does not "phys icall y 3 deplo y[] the airba g[s] or [seat belt] prete nsion ers." Rathe r, Bosch claim s, the algor ithm i s respo nsibl e for makin g the

811308 40

Kilgo suppo rted her respo nse to Bosch 's motio n f o r a
prote ctive order with certa in docum entar y evide nce, inclu ding

the affid avit of Chris Carus o, one of Kilgo 's exper ts. In his

affid avit, Carus o state d that he h a s " perso nal knowl edge,

exper ience a n d educa tion with respe ct to the desig n and

funct ion of suppl ement al restr aint syste ms and, in parti cular ,
airba gs" and that he had "revi ew[ed ]

... docu m e n t s in the

above -styl ed cause and the subje ct 2008 Chrys ler PT Cruis er

... a nd it s sup pleme ntal restr aint syste ms." Caru so fu rther

state d:

" 1 5

. Based upon the two inspe ction s I have condu cted or parti cipat ed in, it is app a rent to me that the root cause [of the failu re of the front passe nger- side air bag and seat- belt prete nsion er to activ ate] appea rs to be a failu re i n t he crash
sen s ing syste m to prope rly detec t and discr imina te crash condi tions

. Based upon my years of exper ience in desig ning these syste ms, th e most proba ble failu re was a desig n of the crash sensi ng algor ithm (math emati cal formu la) or the speci fic calib ratio n used in th e sub ject vehic le.

"16. The deplo yme n t of the knee bolst er airba g and the drive r seat belt prete nsion er (and the failu re of the passe nger airba g, drive r steer ing colum n airba g and passe nger seat belt prete nsion er)
c l e arly indic ate a syste m that was defec tivel y desig ned and faile d to deter mine the high lev e l of

"oper ation al decis ion to deplo y the a i r bags and prete nsion ers."

911308 40

sev erity exper ience d in the subje ct crash of March 17, 2 011." 4

The trial court held a brief heari ng on Bosch 's motio n

for a prote ctive o r d e r
. There after , on March 20, 2014, the

trial court enter ed an order , which state d, in perti nent part:

"[T]h e Co u r t deter mines that said algor ithm and calib ratio ns do in fact c onsti tute a trade secre t and w arran t the prot ectio n of the C ourt.

"The Court furth er de t e r mines that [Kilg o] has shown to this Court the nec e ssity and relev ance of the r eques ted i nform ation

.

" T h e Court has weigh ed the harm to the trad e
secre t's owner again st the need for discl osure
. The need to preve nt discl os u r e does not outwe igh the benef it of the discl osure to what the Court deter mines to b e rel evant evid ence.

"The infor matio n reque sted shall be provi ded to [Kilg o].

"Said infor matio n shall be prote cted as a trade
secre t to the m aximu m ext ent p racti cable

.

Kilgo moved this Court to strik e an affid avit of Carus o's 4 attac hed t o Bosch 's respo nse as Exhib it 12 becau se, Kilgo says, that affid avit, dated June 30, 2014, was not befor e the trial court wh e n i t i ssued its last order in this case on April 22, 2014. We instr ucted the clerk 's offic e to grant the motio n, which it has done. Howev er, the affid avit of Carus o's that K i lgo relie s on above is attac hed to her manda mus petit ion as part of Exhib it D and is a diffe rent a f f idavi t, dated Janu ary 2 2, 20 14. The J anuar y 22, 2014 , aff idavi t was refer enced , witho ut objec tion, durin g a hear ing held by the trial cour t on Febru ary 2 8, 20 14.

1011308 40

"The infor matio n havin g been desig nated a trade

secre t shall not be share d with any perso n, firm or entit y out side this litig ation

.
"The Court in consi derin g measu res to limit the possi ble harm resul ting from discl osure would allow [ B o s c h ] to submi t withi n 10 days from the date of this Order a propo s e d amend ment to the Prote ctive Order enter ed Febru ary 13, 2013[ ] c o n taini ng any 5 addit ional safe guard s [Bo sch] would requ est."

As allow ed by the trial court 's March 20, 2014, order ,
Bosch filed a motio n to amend the trial court 's prote c t i ve

order

. Speci fical ly, Bosch sough t to amend the prote c tive

order by:

(1) "limi t[ing ] discl osure of the algor ithm code to those porti ons o f the code that rela te to the point in t ime t hat a
sever e crash has been detec ted and the decis ion has been made to deplo y the vehic le's restr aints and all algor ithm code there after ";

(2) "mak[ ing] avail able the calib ratio n param eters that set forth the deplo yment of all of the prete nsion ers and front airba gs wh en th e thr eshol d for depl oymen t is reach ed";

There is no prote c t i v e order dated Febru ary 13, 2013, 5

a t t a c h e d to any of the filin gs in this Court

. The petit io n
revea ls that, " o n Septe mber 19, 2012, [Kilg o] and [Bosc h] submi tted to [t he tr ial c ourt] a Jo int M otion for Prote ctive Order [,] which [the trial court ] s u b seque ntly appro ved and signe d"; t he tr ial c ourt enter ed th at or der o n Sep tembe r 20, 2012. It appea rs that t h e trial court 's refer ence to the Febru ary 13, 2013, prote c t ive order was eithe r a cleri cal
error or a refer ence to a n o r der that is not befor e this Court

.
1111308 40

(3) produ cing "the p o rtion s of the algor ithm code and calib ratio n param eters

... at Bosch 's facil ity in Plymo uth, Michi gan";

(4) makin g "the above porti ons of the algor ithm code and calib ratio n param eters

... avai l a b l e to [Chri s] Carus o on compu ter h ardwa re ma intai ned b y Bos ch";

(5) not all owing Carus o to "copy , image , photo graph , or in any way recor d any porti ons of the algor ithm and calib ratio n par amete rs du ring his i nspec tion" ;
(6) requi ring Carus o to "expl icitl y submi t in writi ng to the perso nal juris dicti on of the Circu it Co u r t of Etowa h Count y, Alaba ma for enfor cemen t of the terms of the Prote ctive Order prio r to any i nspec tion of Bo sch's algo rithm ";

(7) requi ring that "Caru so agree in writi ng that he will not p rovid e any anal ysis, disc ussio n, op inion s, co nclus ions,
or commu nicat ions relat ing to Bosch ' s algor ithm and calib ratio n param eters to any indiv idual or entit y who is not

' a parti cipan t' in this litig ation witho ut the expr e s s permi ssion of this Court and witho ut first notif ying Bosch and its couns e l i n t h is litig ation of his desir e to do so and givin g Bos ch a reaso nable oppo rtuni ty to resp ond";

(8) requi ring that "Caru so agree in writi ng that he will not promo te, ad v e r t ise or discu ss the produ ction of the algor ithm and calib ratio n setti ngs, or the fact t h at the produ ction was made, to a nyone othe r tha n a ' parti cipan t' in this litig ation "; an d

(9) requi ring that "all 'work p r oduct ' that Mr. Carus o creat es follo wing his inspe cti o n o f Bosch 's algor ithm and calib ratio n param eters be confi denti ally maint ained by him and provi ded t o Bos ch's attor neys of re cord at th e con clusi on of this litig ation for subse quent dest ructi on."
Kilgo filed a respo nse to Bo s ch's motio n to amend the

prote ctive orde r, ob jecti ng to Bosc h's r eques ts to amen d the

1211308 40

prote ctive order numbe red (1)-( 5) above and also objec ting to

what Kilgo inte rpret ed as Bosc h's l imiti ng to one the n umber

of exper ts Kilgo could emplo y i n analy zing the algor ithm;
Kilgo wante d both Carus o and Geoff Mahan , who is descr ibed as

an exper t in "airb ag [and] suppl ement al restr aint, " to analy ze

the algor ithm. The trial court e n t e r e d an order denyi ng

Bosch 's motio n to amend the prote ctive order a n d , in that

order , requi red Kilgo to "subm it a propo sed Order inclu ding
safeg uards it will emplo y to revie w the reque sted disco very" ;

on April 21, 201 4 , K ilgo submi tted to the trial court a

propo sed prote ctive order

. On the follo wing da y , the trial

court en t e r e d an amend ed prote ctive order , which requi red

B o sch to produ ce the entir e algor ithm for inspe ction b y
Kilgo 's two exper ts, subje ct to 12 co n f i d entia lity and

discl osure safeg uards set forth in the order

. Bosch
petit ioned this Cour t for a wr it of mand amus.

II. S tanda rd of Revi ew

"'In Ex parte Norfo lk South ern Ry., 897 So. 2 d 2 90 (Ala. 2004) , this Court delin eated the limit ed circu mstan ces under which revie w of a disco very order is avail able by a petit ion for a writ o f manda mus and the stand ard f o r that revie w in light of Ex parte Oc w en Feder al Bank, FSB, 872 S o. 2d 810 (Ala. 2003 ):

1311308 40

" ' " ' M a n d a m u s i s a n extra ordin ary remed y and will be grant ed only when there is "(1) a clear legal right in the petit ioner to t he order sough t, (2) an imper ative duty upon the

r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , accom panie d by a refus al to do so, (3) the lack of anoth er adequ ate remed y, and (4) prope rly invok ed juris dicti on of the court ." Ex parte Alfab , Inc., 586 So. 2d 889, 8 91 (Ala. 1991)

. In Ex parte Ocwen Feder al Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810 (Ala. 2003) , this Court annou nced that it would no longe r revie w disco very order s pursu ant to extra ordin a r y writs

. Howev er, we did ident ify f o ur circu mstan ces in which a disco very o rder may be revie wed by a p e t ition for a writ of manda mus. Such circu mstan ces arise (a) when a privi lege is disre garde d, see Ex parte Milto pe Corp. , 823 So. 2d 640, 644–4 5 (Ala. 2001) ; (b) when a disco very order compe ls the produ ction of p a t e n t l y i r r e l e v a n t o r d u p l i c a t i v e d o c u m e n t s t h e produ ction of which clear ly const itute s haras sment or impos es
a burde n on the produ cing party far out of propo rtion to any b e n e f i t r e c e i v e d b y th e reque sting party , see, e.g., Ex parte Compa ss Bank, 686 So. 2d 1135, 1138 (Ala. 1996) ; (c) when t h e trial court eithe r impos es sanct ions effec tivel y precl uding
a decis ion on the merit s or deni es disco very going to a

1411308 40
party 's entir e actio n or defen se
so that, in eithe r event , the outco me of t he case has been all but deter mined and the petit ioner would be merel y going throu gh the motio ns of a trial to obtai n an appea l; or (d) when the trial court imper miss i bly preve nts the petit ioner fro m makin g a recor d
on the disco very issue so that an appel late court canno t revie w the effec t of the trial court 's alleg ed error
. The burde n rests
on the petit ioner to demon strat e that its petit ion prese nts s uch
an excep tiona l case -- that is,
one i n w hich an appea l is not an adequ ate remed y. See Ex p a r te Conso lidat ed Publ' g Co., 601 So. 2d 42 3, 42 6 (Al a. 19 92).' "

"'897 So. 2d at 291

– 92 (quot ing Ex parte Dilla rd Dep't Store s , Inc., 879 So. 2d 1134, 1136 –37 ( Ala. 2003) ).'"

Ex pa rte N ation wide Mut. Ins. Co., 990 S o. 3d 355, 360 (Ala.

2008) (quot ing Ex parte Orkin , Inc., 960 So. 2d 635, 638 (Ala.

2006) ). Kilgo does not dispu te that the order chall enged here

perta ins to a trade -secr e t privi lege and thus is revie wable

under categ ory (a) (" a d i scove ry order may be revie wed by a
petit ion f o r a writ of manda mus
... when a privi lege is

disre garde d").

III. Analy sis

1511308 40

Becau se there is no dispu te that the algor ithm is a trade

secre t, the petit ion prese nts only two issue s for our revie w.

First , B o s c h argue s that the trial court excee ded its

d i s c retio n in not issui ng a prote ctive order that woul d

p r e v e n t Kilgo from havin g any acces s to the algor ithm.

Secon d, Bosch prese nts the alter nativ e argum ent that the trial

court excee ded its discr etion in refus ing to adopt a
prote ctive order draft ed by Bosch and inste ad i s s u i ng a
prote ctive order that, Bosch says, provi des inade quate
safeg uards to p rotec t Bos ch's trade secr et.

Bosch prese nts a lengt hy argum ent as to why the algor ithm

shoul d not be d isclo sed t o Kil go, w hich may b e sum mariz ed as

follo ws:
(1) Bosch argue s th a t K i l g o has not shown that the algor ithm is neces sary to prove h e r claim s. Inste ad, Bosch claim s, Ki lgo h as al leged only a "m ere p ossib ility that [the algor ithm] will prove her case. " Bosch notes that, in Kilgo 's objec tion to Bosch 's motio n to amend the prote ctive o r der, Kilgo state d that "'the forwa rd senso rs and centr al s e nsor locat ed in this desig n may well be impli cated with respe ct to the algor ithm and calib ratio n setti ngs.' " This state m e n t, Bosch says, runs afoul of Ex parte Miche lin North Ame r i c a, Inc., [Ms. 11213 3 0 , J anuar y 24, 2014] ___ So. 3d ____,

____ (Ala. 2014) , insof ar as that case state s that "'"[n ]eces sity"
means that with out d iscov ery o f the part icula r tra de se cret, the disco verin g party would be unabl e to prese nt its case "to the point that an unjus t resul t is a r e a l , rathe r than a merel y possi ble, threa t."'" (Quot ing Bridg eston e Ameri cas Holdi ng, I nc. v . May berry , 878 N.E. 2d 18 9, 19 6 (In d. 20 07).)

1611308 40

(2) Bosch argue s that the algor ithm is an "all- f i r e" syste m that sends a signa l t o d e p l o y all air bags and seatbelt prete nsion ers rathe r than sendi ng a signa l to each air bag and seat- belt prete nsion er; thus, Bosch says, the fact that some of the air bags and seat- belt prete nsion ers deplo yed shows that the alg o rithm funct ioned as desig ned and that it
was n ot de fecti ve (i mplic it in this argu ment is th at no ne of the air bags or pre t e n s i o n ers would have deplo yed if the algor ithm were defec tive)

. Bosch con t e nds that the front passe nger- side air bag and seat- belt pr e t e n s ioner did not deplo y becau se, it says, durin g the colli sions , "four wires to the p assen ger s ide a irbag were cut as wa s the grou nd wi re to the vehic le's batte ry," thus "resu lting in a disru pti o n of power and/ or si gnal refer ence level s."

(3) Bosch argue s th a t the need for discl osure of the algor ithm does not outwe igh the harm that would resul t f rom that discl osure . Sp ecifi cally , Bos ch ar gues that "[Kil go's] airba g exper ts in this case -- both forme r emplo yees of airba g syste m suppl iers -- would recei ve the benef it of years of ECU scie n t i f i c and engin eerin g devel opmen t by Bosch " and that

" [ t ]here is no quant ifiab le amoun t of money that co u l d compe nsate Bosch for the loss of reven ue s , p rofit s, and compe titiv e a d v a n tage it would suffe r if the reque sted infor matio n is disse min a t e d and explo ited by Bosch 's compe titor s."

Bosch argue s alter nativ ely that the trial court excee ded

its discr etion in refus ing to adopt the prote ctive o r d er

draft ed by Bosc h. S pecif icall y. Bo sch a rgues that
"[its ] alter nativ e propo sal would give [Kilg o's] exper ts acces s to the porti ons of the algor ithm and calib ratio ns they claim they need witho ut revea ling t h e entir ety of the trade secre ts. It also allow s [Kilg o's] exper t acces s in a contr olled envir onmen t where Bosch can ens ure that the secre ts are prote cted, while allow ing [Kilg o] the abili ty to revie w a d d ition al data showi ng the 'all fire'

1711308 40

sys tem. The trial court excee ded its discr etion in not a fford ing B osch these prot ectio ns."

Bos c h suppo rts the argum ent porti on of the petit ion with

numer ous ci tatio ns to the affid avits of Kilgo 's exper ts,

Carus o and Maha n, an d its own exper t, To m Liv ernoi s.

In her respo nse, Kilgo prese nts argum ent and evide nce
dispu ting the conte ntion s of e r r o r set forth in Bosch 's
petit ion. In respo nse to Bosch 's initi al argum ent

-- t h at
Kilgo shoul d have no acces s to the algor ithm -- Kilgo argue s:
(1) That Kilgo has shown that the algor ithm is neces sary to prove her claim s. Speci fical ly, Kilgo notes tha t o n e of her exper ts, Carus o, s t a t e d in his affid avit that "'the speci fic algor ithm physi cal princ iples and the calib r a t i on
s e t tings are key facto rs in deter minin g why the sys t e m incor rectl y ass essed the total seve rity of th e sub ject crash and faile d to deplo y the passe nger airba g, the drive r steer ing colum n airba g and the passe nger seat prete nsion er.'" I n addit ion, Kilgo argue s that the nee d f or discl osure does outwe igh the harm that would resul t fro m s uch discl osure becau se, she sa y s , "ther e is no evide nce that [Kilg o's]
a t t o rneys or exper t witne sses would viola te the stric t prote ctive order ," and that, for "inde pende nt consu l ting engin eers" such as Carus o and Mahan , "it is commo npla c e to revie w trade secre t infor matio n under the limit ation s of a prote ctive order ." Kilgo fu r t h e r argue s that "what is at issue is t he al gorit hm an d cal ibrat ions for a n ECU in a 2008 model year vehic le. By the time the matte r is befor e [this Court ], th e 201 5 mod el ye ar au tomob iles will be fo r sal e and the infor matio n will be seven years old." Kilgo notes (and it is undis puted ) that there have been "upda tes" to the algor ithm that exist ed in the 2008 PT Cr uiser

. (2) That "Bosc h's argum ents are merel y an asser tion that [Kilg o] and this Court must simpl y trust [Bosc h] when it says

1811308 40

that the ECU canno t be defec tive, " witho ut Kilgo 's havin g the oppor tunit y to verif y that the ECU is, in fact, an "all- fire" syste m that canno t signa l less than all the air bags and seatbelt prete nsion ers to deplo y. As to Bosch 's argum ent that the cutti ng of four wires to the front passe nger- side air bag and the groun d wire to the vehic le's batte ry durin g the colli sions
cause d the front passe nger- side air bag and seat- belt prete nsion er no t to deplo y, Ki lgo r eplie s:

"The reaso n the 'elec trica l syste m' argum ent isn't meani ngful ca n be shown by exami ning its parts

. First , the cutti ng of wires runni n g to the passe nger airba g doesn 't expla in why the pass e nger seatb elt prete nsion er and the drive r's steer ing seatb elt prete nsion er and the drive r's steer ing wheel airba g faile d to activ ate -- as they o perat e from their own wirin g conne ction s.
... Secon d, those syste ms are desig ned such that the airbag neede d to fire withi n milli secon ds after the crash was sense d and th u s b e fore the wires could be cut in the impac t, or else the ECU was defectiv e by firin g too late, sugge sting anoth er defec t in the algor ithm.

...
"The issue of t h e sever ed groun d wire from the batte r y also does not expla in the failu re of the restr aint syste m. These syste ms a r e desig ned to compe nsate for such an occur rence by the inclu sion of a reser v e energ y capac itor withi n the ECU that conta ins enoug h power to a c t i v ate all of the restr aint compo nents

. ... "

(Bold type face in or igina l.)

In respo nse to Bosch 's secon d argum ent -- that Kilgo may

be entit led to some o f , b u t n o t all, the algor ithm -- Kilgo

a r gues that the propo sed prote ctive order draft ed by Bosch

1911308 40

"excl udes the most re l e v a n t and most neede d infor matio n."
Speci fical ly, K ilgo argue s tha t

"[t]h e infor matio n that Bosch offer s to p r o v ide fails to inclu de the algor ithm an d c a libra tions regar ding the actua l ' crash discr imina tion thres holds .'

... Chris Carus o expla ined by affid avit that the 'cras h sensi ng algor ithm and/o r calib ratio ns' were neede d.

... He testi fied that the
mo s t p robab le failu re was a desig n of the crash sensi ng algor ithm[ ] and that 'the speci fic algor ithm physi cal princ iples and calib ratio n setti ngs for the crash deter minat ion thres hol ds are key facto rs in deter minin g the [sic] why the syste m incor rectl y asses sed the total sever ity of the subje ct crash .'

... The data Bosch would agree to provi de, begin ning at the point in time when the 'all- fire' comma nd was sent, omit s thi s key info rmati on."

H aving consi dered the compe lling and well suppo rt e d

argum ents prese nted by both Bosch and Kilgo , we agree w i th

Bosch inso far a s it argue s tha t the tria l cou rt ex ceede d its

discr etio n by enter ing a prote ctive order that provi des

insuf ficie nt prote ction for the algor ithm, which , as noted , is

undis puted ly a trade secr et. There fore, the petit ion i s due

to be grant ed to that exten t. See Ex parte W

. L

. H alsey

Groce ry Co., 897 So. 2d 1028, 1035 (Ala. 2004) ("Bec ause [the
petit ioner ] has show n tha t it has a clea r leg al ri ght t o the

relie f sough t, we grant the petit ion and order the trial court

to prote ct [the petit ioner 's] trade -secr et infor matio n to the

2011308 40

maxim um exten t pract icabl e, strik ing a fair and reaso n a b le

balan ce betwe en [the peti t i oner' s] legit imate inter est in

confi denti ality and the defen dants ' equal ly legit imate

inter est in defen ding the claim s again st them with the benef it

of di scove ry.")

.
IV. C onclu sion

We grant Bosch 's petit ion and direc t t h e trial court to

vacat e its prote ctive order and to enter a more compr ehens ive

and restr ictiv e prote ctive order with regar d to the algor ithm.

See Ex parte W.L. Halse y Groce ry Co., supra
. This o p i n ion,

h o w e ver, is not to be read as direc ting the trial cou r t t o

enter th e p r o posed prote ctive order previ ously offer ed by

Bosch as t he go verni ng pr otect ive o rder in th is ca se.

PETIT ION G RANTE D; WR IT IS SUED.

Stuar t, Bo lin, Parke r, an d Wis e, JJ ., co ncur.

Murdo ck, S haw, and B ryan, JJ., conc ur in the resul t.

Moore , C.J ., di ssent s.

2111308 40

SHAW, Just ice ( concu rring in t he re sult)

.

I agree with the impli cit holdi ng in th e main opini on
rejec ti n g the argum ents of Rober t Bosch LLC that Dorot hy
Kilgo 's disco very of the algor ithm Bosch claim s as a t r a de

secre t is no t " n ecess ary" in Kilgo 's case and that the need

for discl osur e o f t he algor ithm does not outwe igh the

poten tial harm to Bosch from its discl osure
. I furth er agree

that the prote ctive order enter ed by the trial c o u r t w as

insuf ficie nt to prote ct Bosch 's trade secre ts. See Rule 507,

Ala. R. Evid. ("If discl osure is direc ted, the court s h a ll

take such prote ctive meas ures as th e int erest s of the h older

of the privi lege and of the parti es and the inter ests of
justi ce re quire .").

I belie ve that t he amend ments to the prote ctive order

reque sted by Bosch were appro pr i ate in this case, excep t to

the f ollow ing e xtent :
(1) The trial court s h o uld consi der allow ing more than a singl e exper t, Chris Carus o, to revie w t he algor ithm infor matio n. Howev er, it shoul d be m ade clear that the broad categ ory of "qual ified perso ns" set forth in the April 22, 20 1 4, prote ctive order , is no t ent itled to r eview that info rmati on.
(2) The algor ithm infor matio n that Bosch offer ed to provi de shoul d inclu de infor matio n ident ified in

2211308 40

Carus o's affid avit as "cras h discr imina t ion thres holds ."

Altho ugh I have s o m e conce rns that Bosch 's propo sed

limit ation s o n t h e abili ty of Kilgo 's exper ts to copy or

other wise recor d the algor ithm may hampe r their abili t y to

effec tivel y exa mine the m ateri als, the t rial court coul d, if
possi ble, craft a solut ion that would allow the exper t s to

retai n the minim um amoun t of infor matio n requi r e d to
adequ ately exam ine t his i nform ation

.
Murdo ck an d Bry an, J J., c oncur
.

2311308 40

MOORE , Chi ef Ju stice (dis senti ng).

"The utili zatio n of a writ of manda mu s t o compe l or
prohi bit disco very is restr icted becau se of the discr etion ary

natur e of a dis cover y ord er. T he ri ght s ought to b e enf orced
by manda mus must be clear and certa in with no reaso nable basis

for cont r overs y about the right to relie f." Ex parte Dorse y

Trail ers, Inc., 397 So. 2d 98, 102 (Ala. 1981)

. In this case,

the trial court craft ed a prote ctive order that a l l owed

Dorot hy Kilgo to obtai n the infor matio n she neede d, subje ct to

12 confi denti ality safeg uards that were desig ned to prote ct

Rober t Bosch LLC ("Bos ch"). Conse quent ly, I can not say that

Bosch had a "clea r and certa in right " to even more prote ction

or that there is "no reaso nable basis f o r contr overs y about

the right to relie f." Dorse y Trail e r s , 3 9 7 S o. 2d at 102. I

conti nue to maint ain the posit i on that manda mus is impro per

for disco very matte rs excep t in the most extre me of

circu mstan ces. See, e.g., Ex parte Mobil e Serv. Gas Corp. , 123

So. 3d 499, 516 (Moor e, C.J., disse nting ); Ex parte Ocwen

Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810, 817 (Ala. 2003) (Moor e, C.J.,

concu rring in the resul t). There fore, I respe ctful ly disse nt.

24