Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/order-denying-movants-request-for-a-pro-85884/
Timestamp: 2014-08-20 16:44:40
Document Index: 262784049

Matched Legal Cases: ['§632', '§306', '§ 2017', '§499', 'art: 22', '§ 1070', '§ 997']

Order denying movant's request for a protective order | Apple Computer v Does | Electronic Frontier Foundation - JDSupra
Apple Computer v DoesOrder denying movant's request for a protective order
This is the court order denying movant's request for a protective order against the subpoena. Download PDF . :, 1 I Superior cj u~ve OtliC1lrlClerk 5 . ra tJ! DEPUTy 6 , I : STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTYO FS ANTA 10 COMPUTER, ) 12 Plaintiff, )) 13 vs. ) and Does 2-))) 16 Defendants )) 17 )) 18 19 20 21 . Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd1 2 Opsahl, Esq" of Electronic Frontier FoundatioI1 represented the movants,2 3 Although not required to issue opinions or statements of decision when decidu1g cases on 4 the motion calendar, Code of Civil Procedure §632, 4 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed, 5 1997) Trial, §306, p.461, the Court is doing so here because it believes it may be helpful to 6 counsel and the parties to do so. 7 I. LIMITS RULING 8 This motion is about discovery; namely, a single subpoena served by Apple on Nfox. 9 The order of this Court does not go beyond the questions necessary to deten11ine this motion 10 seeking a protective order against that single subpoena, and it cannot and should not be read or interpreted more broadly. The Court makes no finding as to the ultimate melits of Apple's 12 clai1)1so,r any defensesto thosec laims.T hosei ssuesr emain for another day, 16 Apple filed its co\uplaint on December 13,2004 alleging that unnamed individuals or 17 entities ("Does I through 25") had leaked specific, trade secret infonnation about new Apple 18 products to several online websites, including AppleInsider That infonnation is not counsel of record in this case, but at his request the Court allowed him to participate in d1c hearing Apple which may raise similar issues. 25 2 On March 3,2005 Department 14 of the Cow't which i$ assigncd the civil discovery calendar, posted its telephonic Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd2 provider for PowerPage. Apple is seeking the identities of the source or sources for this regarding an unreleased Apple product code-named "Asteroid" or "Q97" (the "Product"), 6 including po stings that appeared on PowerPage.com (the "Web site") on November 19) 7 November 22, November 23) and November 26, 2004. These documents include: 11 received from or sent to any Disclosing person(s). 12 Nfox subpoena, no discovery is currently outstanding. 14 subpoena.3 Movants claim to be '~oumalists.'.4 On that basis they claim a privilege from 16 Apple's position is the acquisition and dissemination of the alleged trade secrets are 18 22 ) Although askedt o make an "advisory ruling" on other, unserveds ubpoenast,h e Court decljne~t o do so. line diary; a per50nal cmonologicallog ofrhoughts published on a web page; also called Web1og, Web log." Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd1 other hand,t here is the undisputedr ight to protecti ntel1ectuapl ropertya s expressedin California party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject 5 matter involved in the pending action or to the detennination of any motion made in that actioJ:l, if the Jnattere ither is itself admissiblei n evidenceo r appearsre asonablyc alculatedt o lead to the 6 discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the pal1y 7 seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of personsh avingk nowledgeo f any discoverablem atter, asw ell as of the existence, S description,n ature,c ustody,c ondition, and locationo f any document,t angib1eth ing, or land or other property.C ode of Civil Procedure§ 2017(a) 9 Discovery is given a broad reach in California courts; at the same time the courts have 10 11 ftequently balanced competing interests in this regard, for example, iJ:ldividllal privacy rights. 14 that the information at issue constituted proprietary trade secrets and that it has taken adequate 15 steps by way ofintemal investigations to justify further, external discovery as it seeks here. See, 16 17 18 Apple 11asm aintained that the infoxmation published by the moving parties qualifies as 19 20 (the "UTSA") adopted in 1985,5 and Penal Code 21 §499c.T hoses tatutesp rovide, in pertinentp art: 22 23 * * * 24 2S 26 ~A s with other laws titled "Uniform,. . therea re differencesb etweenC alifornia's versiono f this taw and the original version,b ut thosed ifferencesa ren ot of consequenchee re.T he UTSA supplantedC alifornia'g commonl aw of trade $ecretsd erived from the Restatemenot f Torts 2d. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd-1 (b) "Misappropriationm" eans: (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a 4 person who; knowledge of the trade secret was: it' 7' (ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or 8 limit its use; or(iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking 9 relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or 11 *** 12 (d) "Trade secret" means infomtation, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being disclosure or use; and 15 (2) Is the subjecto f efforts that arer easonableu ndert he circumstancesto 16 maintain its secrecy. 18 *** (9) "Trades ecret"m eanSin formationi,n cludinga formula,p attern, 19 compilation,p rogram,d evice,m ethod,t echnique,o r processt,h at: 21 disclosure or use; and (B) Is the subjecto f efforts that arer easonableu ndert he circumstancesto 22 maintain its secrecy, (b) Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the connol of a to the use of another, does any of the following~ 24 (1) Steals, takes, carries away, or uses without authorization, a trade secret, 25 (2) Fraudulentlya ppropriatesa ny article representinga trade secrete ntrustedt o 26 (3) Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causesto be madea copy of any article representinga trade secret. -5-i Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd-1 *** (C) Every person who promises, offers or gives, or conspires to promise or offer to give, 2 to any presento r fonner agent,e mployeeo r servanto f another,a benefit as an inducement!b ribe 3 or reward for conveying,d elivering or otherwisem aking availablea n article representinga trade secret owned by his or her present or former principal, employer or master! to any person not 4 authorized by the owner to receive or acquire the trade secret and every present or fonner agent, employee!o r servant,w ho solicits, acceptsr, eceiveso r takesa benefit as an inducement!b ribe or 5 reward for conveyulg,d elivering or otherwisem aking availablea n article representinga trade secret owned by his or her present or fonner principal, employer or master, to any person not 6 authorized by the owner to receive or acquire the trade secret, shall be punished by imprisonment 7 in the statep rison, or in a countyj ail not exceedingo ney ear, or by a fine not exceedingf ive thousand dollars ($ 5.000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. 8 (d) In a prosecution for a violation of this section, it shall be no defense that the person returned or intended to retum the arocle. 9 Theses tatutesr eflect this state!ss trongc ommitmentt o the protectiono f proprietary 10 businessin formation. SeeI ntegral Dev. Corp. v. Weissenbac(h2 002) 99 Ca!. App. 4th5 76, 11 Magnec()mpC orp. v. AtheneC o. (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 526. The statutesa lso supportt he 12 compelling interest of disclosure which may, in the proper civil case, outweigh First Amendment 13 rights. 14 15 California Legislature has not carved out any exception to these statutes for journalists, bloggers 16 or anyone else. 17 For these reasons the Court has carefully reviewed the showing made by Apple to date. 18 The posting by Mr. O'Grady contained an exact copy of a detailed drawing of 1\ Asteroid" created 19 20 to-Know Confidential.!' In addition~ technical specifications were copied verbatim from the 21 confidential slide set and posted on the online site. These postings by Mr. O'Grady were spread 22 over three days, November 19, 22 and 23,2004. The Court is convinced by Apple's 23 presentationi,n cluding the materialsp roducedi n camerat hat this action hasp assedt he 24 thresholdsn ecessaryfo r discoveryt o proceed. 25 26 .6. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd. 5 "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press by 1 'The First Amendment applies to speech on the Internet. Rel1O v. American Civil Libertie.)' 8 Union, (1997) 521 U.S. 844. The primary purpose of the guarantee of freedom of the press is to 10 temporary restraint on pure speech is improper absent the !'most compelling circumstances," In 11 the Matter of Providence Journal Co., (1st Cir. 1986) 820 F.2d 1342, 1351. The First 13 The broad parameters of the prior restraint doctrine were further explained in the 17 ongoing, and the govenunent argued that the publication of the classified information might 18 damaget he national interest.T he Court observedth at, becausea ny prior restraint on speechis 19 presumptivelyi nvalid under the First Amendment,t he governmenbt ore a heavy burdeno f 20 showinga justification for the restraint.F inding that the governmenht ad not met its burden,t he 21 Court denied the injunction. Id. at 714. 22 But the pending motion is not for injunctive relief against anyone and the Pentagon 23 Papers case and similar authorities are not on point. 24 First, the issue of prior restraint is not before the Court. The California Supreme Court's 26 value. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd, 1 representing movants, the Supreme Court observed that "[T]he First Amendment does not 5 "The mere fact that DVD CCA's 7 6 The Merriam-Wcbstcr online dictionary states: 2 : a person who keeps 3. journal -Ism 23 1 a ; the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : thc public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the managemcnt of a news medium 24 2 a : writing designedf Q{ publication in a newspapeQr rm agazineb : writing characterizedb y a direct presentation Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd1 movants are journalists, this is not the equivaleDt of a free pass. The journalist's privilege is not 2 absolute. For example, joun1a)ists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a 4 "The preference for anonymity of those confidential informants involved in actual 5 criroj.naJc onducti s presumablya product of their desiret o escapec riminal prosecution,a nd this 7 691. 10 California Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Superior Court, (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 268,276. In that case, 12 should be pennitted over an assertion of the Federal privilege: 13 (I) "Nature of the litigation and whether the reporter is a party:" 14 Although not yet named as defendantsi,t is certainlyp ossible" journalists" may be; 15 certainly Mr. O'Grady's declaration suggests this possibility. 16 (2) "Does discovery sought go to the heart of plaintiffs claim~" 18 defendants upon whom it should serve process. 19 (3) 20 The moving parties maintain Apple should have done more investigating up to this point, 21 including the unusual step of noticing the depositions of its own employees. But the Court is 22 convinced) upon reviewing Apple's public and in camera materials that a thorough investigation 23 has been done and all alternative means have been exhausted. ;, '1 !ii 24 (4) "What is the public good served by protecting the misappropriation of trade secrets?" 2S 26 .9. j ,~_.,~...,~~4'"' I I ,, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd-1. Movants did not presenta persuasivere asono f "public good" and never answeredth e 4 (5) [Paraphrased] In the context of a detamation case~sh ould the Cou11r equire the 6 This is not a defamation case, and movants do not believe this factor is pertinent. In any 7 event, the Court finds that Apple has made aprimafacie case of misappropriation and this is yet 8 another reason to allow discovery. 10 Easily overstated in its power, "[t]he description 'shield law' conjures up visions of broad 11 protection and sweeping privilege. The California shield law, however, is unique in that it 12 affords only limited protection. It does not create a privilege for newspeople, rather it provides 13 an 15 Superior Court, (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3de 375,379-80. 16 California Evidence Code §§ 1070(a) and (b). cited by movants, are quite specific in their 17 terms: newspaperm, agazine,o r other periodicalp ublication,o r by a pressa ssociationo r wire service, 19 or any personw ho hasb eens o connectedo r employed,c annotb e adjudgedi n contemptb y a 20 judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any 21 infonnation procuredw hile so connectedo r employedf or publication in a newspaperm, agazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished infonnation obtained 22 or preparedi n gathering,r eceivingo r processingo f infom1ationf or communicationt o the public. 23 (b) Nor can a radioo r televisionn ewsr eporteor r otherp ersonc onnectewd ith or employedb y adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering~ receiving or 26 processingo f infonIlation for communication to the public. ,10-"""'-""",,"",,'" . ' i Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd,.' -!"}"" 2 qualifies for relief from the subpoenao n the groundsa dvanced.W7 hetherh e fits the definition of 3 ajoumalist, reporter, blogger, or anything else need not be decided at this juncture for this 4 fundamental 14 The physician-patienpt rivilege, EvidenceC ode §§ 997,999 I 15 17 ill. CONCLUSION with essentially no added value. As noted at the outset, the Court declines to make "advisory rulings" with respecto 25 Monish Bhatia, KasperJ ade,P owerPageo, r Applelmider as movantsr equest. For example, docwnents s~t by a client to his/her lawyer do not become "privileged" simply by bcing sent to counsel. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd. 1 chaI"ged word "fence" to describe parties who acted as go-betweens between the generator of the 2 secret property and the recipients of it. Although specifically asked of colillsel for movants, the 3 Court did not hear rebuttal to the analogy at the hearing. The bottom line is there is no exception 4 or exemption in either the UrSA or the Penal Code for journalists -however defined -or anyone 5 else. 6 Much of the movants' papers and their oral argument stressed the public's interest in 8 a company which has achieved iconic status. One need no further proof of this point than to 11 Book User Group".. in the United States.". has contributed articles to MacWEEK, MacWorld, 12 MacAddict, MacPower(Japan) ...[and] written chapters for The MacinJosh Bible. ,. Movant's 13 Opening Brief at 4: 8-20. Mr. O'Grady is far from alone: the public has had, and continues to 14 have a profound interest in gossip about Apple. Therefore it is not swprisiDg that hundreds of 15 thousandso f "hits" on a websitea boutA pple havea ndw ill happen.B ut an interestedp ublic is 16 not the same as the public interest. 20 interest of the public in Apple, rather than justifying why citizens have a right to know the 2\ private and secret information of a business entity, be it Apple, H-P, a law firm, a newspaper, 24 worse by our public officials, the movants are doing nothing more than feeding the public's 25 insatiable desire for information. 26 -12-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd1 Indeed, a careful review ofmovants' opening and reply papers and the hearing transcript 2 revealst hat movantsn evera dequatelyd ealt with the issueo f the llltersectiono f trades ecretsa nd 6 ignore an essentiali ssuet hat the Court specificallyi nquiresa bout,i t sendsa messageth ey have 7 little to say on the subject. And if, as movants argue, trade secrets are always at risk -a "sieve," 8 at 10 Let there be no doubt: nothing in this order is meant to preclude the exchange of opinions I 11 and ideas, speculation about the future, or analyses of known facts. The rumor and opinion mills 12 may continue to run at full speed. What underlies this decision is the publishing of inforr:nation I 15 and courts have long affinned and which is essential to the future oftecbnology and innovation 18 For all of the above reasons the Court denies the movants' request for a protective order. 23 Honorable James P. Kleinberg 24 Judge of the Superior Court 2S 26 10C iting Kewaneei s interestingb ecausein that caset he United StatesS upremeC O\n1a ffinned the co-equals tatuso f -13-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e58f45e6-62ca-4205-a2f0-8607fe41dbdd
Download PDF[2010KB]