Opinion ID: 889641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: background of consolidated appeals

Text: ¶ 3 Each Appellant was charged with DUI pursuant to § 61-8-401, MCA, or DUI per se pursuant to § 61-8-406, MCA, and each took a breath test on the Intoxilyzer 8000. The prosecution, either the City of Helena, Montana, or the State of Montana (collectively State), used the breath sample results generated by the Intoxilyzer 8000 as evidence of guilt in each case. ¶ 4 Each Appellant moved the District Court for an order requiring the State, as a condition precedent to introducing each Appellants' breath sample result, to produce the source code and all related information for the Intoxilyzer 8000 so that this information could be examined by a defense expert. The source code is the human readable format of the software that controls the operation of the Intoxilyzer 8000. In other words, the source code tells the Intoxilyzer 8000 how to calculate the numerical result, such as 0.08. If the source code contains a mistake, then the result generated will be defective. ¶ 5 The State opposed the Appellants' motions, arguing it had no better access to the source code than Appellants, as the source code is possessed and controlled exclusively as intellectual property by CMI, Inc. (CMI), a Kentucky-based corporation. ¶ 6 The District Court issued a Certificate of Judge Requesting Out-of-State Witness, a summons, and a subpoena duces tecum (collectively Certificate) to Toby Hall (Hall), President of CMI. The documents commanded Hall to appear in Montana to give testimony and to produce: 1. The Intoxilyzer 8000 source code (all versions in electronic and paper format); 2. The Intoxilyzer 8000 Basic Software program with adaptations and modifications (all versions in electronic and paper format); 3. The Intoxilyzer 8000 Montana Software program (all versions in electronic and paper format); 4. The Intoxilyzer 8000 R-Software program and/or its equivalent ever used, or created for use in Arizona (all versions in electronic and paper format); 5. The Intoxilyzer 8000 Check-Sum Program or its equivalent (all versions in electronic and paper format); 6. Any other applicable software programs used in the Intoxilyzer 8000 (all versions in electronic and paper format); 7. Information, documentation, and identification as to the software maker for the Intoxilyzer 8000, if outsourced from CMI. ¶ 7 In the Daviess Circuit Court, Division I, Commonwealth of Kentucky (Kentucky Court), Hall and CMI opposed the Certificate as being defective on its face. After a hearing in Kentucky, at which Appellants' attorney and expert witness, Thomas Workman (Workman), appeared, the Kentucky Court agreed with Hall and CMI. It found the Certificate defective on its face. It also found [t]he source code is a trade secret of CMI, Inc. and that it would be an undue hardship for CMI to produce the source code. ¶ 8 However, Hall and CMI offered to produce the source code subject to certain conditions. The Kentucky Court's order stated: 4. ... CMI is agreeable to electronic disclosure of the source code at CMI's offices in Owensboro, Kentucky. A Protective Order, as attached hereto, shall govern electronic disclosure of the source code at CMI's offices in Owensboro, Kentucky. 5. Mr. Hall is not required to take any further action, in response to the Montana Certificate, until and unless the appropriate Protective Orders and Non-Disclosure Agreements attached hereto, have been signed by Montana defense counsel, his local counsel, and any proposed expert. 6. The Court further Orders that Items 2-7, of the subpoena duces tecum attached to the Montana Certificate, are denied. When and if the Montana defendant is able to particularize, and narrow, the scope of the documents requested, local counsel may resubmit those items to CMI for further review. CMI shall be entitled to advance compensation, however, for time and expense for responding to any such future document requests. The Kentucky Court retained jurisdiction for the purposes of its order and the attached Protective Order. ¶ 9 The Protective Order limits the use of confidential information, including the source code, to the above-captioned matter, meaning the specific case in which the source code and confidential information was sought. Access to any confidential information was limited to: (a) The Court and its staff; (b) Attorneys of record and their law firms; (c) Persons shown on the face of the document to have authored or received it; (d) Court reporters retained to transcribe testimony; (e) The Parties to this case; (f) Outside vendors (limited to professional copy services); and (g) Outside independent persons who are retained by or otherwise assist a Party or its Attorney to provide technical or expert services and/or give testimony in this action, and who are not, and have not been, employed by (as an employee, agent, or consultant) or otherwise affiliated with, any manufacturer of breath alcohol testing instruments within the preceding twenty-four (24) months. Under the Protective Order, outside independent persons, attorneys, and the parties receiving access to confidential information and the source code are also required to execute a Non-Disclosure agreement, attached as Exhibit A to the Protective Order. ¶ 10 The Non-Disclosure Agreement provides, in relevant part: I agree not to copy or replicate any part of the Source Code, except as necessary to perform a meaningful Source Code review. I agree that I will not reproduce, use, or disclose any Confidential Information obtained through my inspection and review of the Source Code except in accordance with the Protective Order in the above-captioned case and this Non-Disclosure Agreement. ¶ 11 In exchange for executing the Protective Order and Non-Disclosure Agreement (collectively Agreements), CMI agreed to provide the following at its Owensboro, Kentucky, headquarters: i. All Source Code files for the current version of the Intoxilyzer used in the State of Montana in native electronic format, capable of review and analysis by commercial source code review software such as LINT or Understand. ii. All libraries and files used to assemble or compile and link the Source Code. iii. All make files and script files (as applicable only to the Intoxilyzer 5000) used to assemble or compile and link the Source Code. iv. The assembler and linker for the Z-80 processor and the compiler and linker for the 8051 processor as applicable only to the Intoxilyzer 5000. v. A computer capable of viewing and reviewing the Source Code. CMI will also provide a printer for printing sections of material for ease of review on site, however, all printouts including or comprising any portion of the Source Code will be retained by CMI at the end of the evaluation. vi. Completely assembled or compiled and linked HEX files for both the Z-80 and 8051 systems, and EPROM's with the HEX files loaded for both the Z-80 and 8051 systems as applicable only to the Intoxilyzer 5000. vii. A printout of actual data obtained as a result of calibration. viii. A COBRA system as used by the State of Montana to download data from instruments and the cables required to link to a test instrument. ix. An Intoxilyzer, configured for the State of Montana, for testing, loaded with the EPROM's mentioned in item vi. CMI will also make available wet bath simulators and solution for instrument testing. ¶ 12 Additionally, as part of CMI producing the above information, CMI included the following terms: No part of the Source Code in its native electronic format shall be copied, transmitted, or removed from CMI's corporate headquarters in Kentucky. No portion of the Source Code shall be copied verbatim except as necessary for meaningful expert review. Any notes, summaries, reports, or other documents that contain a verbatim recitation of any portion of the Source Code shall not be publicly disclosed unless all verbatim recitations of the Source Code have been completely redacted, and if filed with a court of law, shall be filed under seal. If litigants, their counsel, or experts, load the Source Code onto their own computers for analysis with commercial programs such as LINT or Understand, or for any other purpose, such computers may not have communications capabilities, including wi-fi/wireless, Ethernet, or modem capability, or such capabilities must be completely disabled. Further, such computers must have any external drives, USB ports, and other data transfer capabilities disabled. If any portion of the Source Code is loaded onto a reviewer's computer, the reviewer must agree to destroy the computer's hard drive at CMI in the presence of CMI's representative, or to leave the computer's hard drive at CMI at the conclusion of the review. ¶ 13 The State filed the Agreements with the District Court, and suggested the Appellants be given a reasonable time to comply and view the source code before setting the cases for trial. After a very lively discussion, in chambers and off the record, the District Court found that the requirement to sign the Agreements was reasonable. It then set a hearing on whether it would be an undue hardship, under § 46-15-322, MCA, for Appellants to view the source code in Kentucky under CMI's proffered terms. ¶ 14 At the hearing, the only witness was Workman. Workman testified that, generally, he had no objection to signing a protective order. However, Workman testified to a number of problems with the Agreements. Workman felt the Agreements were strictly limiting, and they threaten my license to practice law if I violate them. He said, regarding the nondisclosure agreement, it's not that I won't sign it. I don't believe I can sign itwithout subjecting myself to sanctions. Workman also felt the Agreements were unreasonable because it would take 90 days to review the source code at CMI headquarters [i]t is cost prohibitive to do that and it would take significantly longer to do it in Kentucky. Workman also took issue with having to destroy his computer hard drive when leaving CMI headquarters. Workman wanted the source code sent electronically to him, so it could be reviewed on his computer, without having to sign the Agreements. ¶ 15 Workman agreed that CMI was offering all the things [he] request[ed] in its native environment[,] including the source code, a computer and software to analyze the source code, a fully operational Intoxilyzer configured for the State of Montana, and solution for testing. Essentially, CMI would provide everything Workman would need to review the source code in its native format, and the actual Intoxilyzer itself. Workman also testified that he would not personally be conducting the review of the source code, but would hire individuals to do the actual review while he would manage the source code review. ¶ 16 At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Court stated: I'm ruling that there's reasonable accessibility through signing the [Agreements]. I think that's reasonable. The issue of whether or not that would be considered protected information under Montana law is not before us now. That's not appropriate for me to have separate hearings on that ... It's my feeling that if the State of Kentucky heard all of that information and heard all of that evidence and had a hearing, that that's appropriate and that we would give the State of Kentucky full faith and credit on that determination. And so, because it's ait's protected information, the nondisclosure provision is reasonable. The evidence today indicates that access to the source code and to all of that other software and hardware that's pertinent to evaluating the effectiveness and theand whether or not the source code is in error or whether it's not in error, that's all available in the State of Kentucky. And it sounds to me like the State of Kentucky is doing whatever they can that's reasonable and appropriate to provide the information that people need, that the defense needs, within the scope of their protection of their trademark or intellectual property. ¶ 17 Appellants also issued a subpoena duces tecum to Benjamin Vetter of the Montana Department of Justice, Forensic Sciences Division, seeking virtually all information related to the use of the Intoxilyzer 8000 in Montana. The subpoena duces tecum sought information for all Intoxilyzer 8000 machines deployed in Montana from their date of deployment to today's date [March 16, 2010] including: operating, training, and maintenance manuals; the State's procurement contracts; all information relating to breath testing of citizens, whether the test produced an evidentiary result or not; inspection, calibration, and certification information; Login information; and the machine code. [1] The State moved to quash the subpoena, arguing it circumvented the discovery statutes and that it lacked a statement of substantial need and undue hardship, as required by § 46-15-322, MCA. ¶ 18 After briefing, the District Court issued the following order: Ben Vetter shall provide the following, if he has access to it: 1. A copy of any documentation indicating that the Department of Justice has approved the Intoxilyzer 8000 used in this case and that there has been compliance with the requirement that personnel are properly trained. 2. A copy of the operating, training and maintenance manuals for the Intoxilyzer 8000 used in this case. 3. The State's procurement contract for the Intoxilyzer 8000 used in [this] case. 4. Information relating to annual or monthly inspections of the Intoxilyzer 8000 used in this case for the year 2008. All the rest of the information requested by [Appellants] is so voluminous and oppressive for this subpoena. [Appellants have] failed to establish substantial need to overcome the burden [they] want[] to impose and, furthermore, the Court questions the relevance of this information in view of the pending criminal charge. ¶ 19 Shortly after this ruling, each Appellant entered a plea of guilty, reserving their right to appeal. Appellants appeal from both orders of the District Court limiting their requests. We consolidated the appeals for the purpose of deciding the following issues: ¶ 20 Issue One: Whether the District Court erred when it denied the Motion for Discovery Of, Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum For, or Order Directing the City to Issue an Investigative Subpoena For, the Source Code for the Intoxilyzer 8000? ¶ 21 Issue Two: Whether the District Court erred when it quashed portions of the defendants' Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Benjamin Vetter of the Montana Department of Justice, Forensic Science Division?