Opinion ID: 3010675
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevance of Purported Secret Information to

Text: Other Aspects of the Defense Strategy Having concluded that the defendants' right to access actual trade secrets is not required in order to defend against an element of the government's case, the question remains whether the defendants' right of access to the information as it relates to other defenses passes muster under the test of materiality. The defendants argue that the unredacted documents are also material to the preparation of the potential defenses of entrapment, outrageous government conduct, and jurisdiction, and contend that the documents are needed to defend against the elements of attempt and conspiracy, the allegations of the indictment, and the evidence that the government intends to introduce at trial. As an initial matter, we note that we are skeptical of the materiality, let alone relevance, of the redacted trade secret information to these issues. For example, the defendants argue that they need the unredacted documents to disprove the intent and substantial step elements of attempt and the overt act requirement of conspiracy.21 However, proof of these factors is necessarily independent of any trade secrets contained in the Bristol-Myers documents, because the defendants can be guilty of attempt and conspiracy to steal trade secrets even if the documents contained no confidential information at all. See MPC S 5.01(1)(c) (attempt), S 5.02(1)(a) (conspiracy).22 _________________________________________________________________ 21. Conspiracy charges under S 1832 require both an agreement and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiratorial objective. See 18 U.S.C. S 1832(a)(5) (providing that a defendant is guilty of conspiracy if he conspires with one or more other persons to commit an offense proscribed by S 1832, and if one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy). 22. Moreover, the government has assured us that it has no intention to use or refer to the alleged trade secrets at trial. The government intends to prove its allegations instead by using other materials that reflect an attempt and a conspiracy to violate the EEA. For example, the government has stated that it may offer the e-mail list that Chou allegedly sent to Hartmann on March 13, 1997, outlining the core technology that YFP would need to complete a deal. By this list the government intends to prove that the defendants attempted to steal what they believed to be trade secrets without ever revealing the actual trade secrets themselves. The jury will thus never learn-- and will have no reason to learn -- of the content of the redacted material. 28 However, we will not address defendants' claim of need for the redactions as to any other defense or aspect of the case for two reasons. First, the defendants never raised the materiality of the redacted information as to any other defenses before the district court, and the court never addressed these other arguments in its opinion. The defendants' briefs to the district court argued only that the government must prove the existence of an actual trade secret in a prosecution for attempt and conspiracy and that legal impossibility remains a viable defense. We will not examine other contentions as to the materiality or relevance of trade secret information that are being raised for the first time on appeal. See Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 35 F.3d 840, 845 (3d Cir. 1994) (This court has consistently held that it will not consider issues that are raised for the first time on appeal.).23 Further, no one -- not this Court, not the district court, not even the parties themselves -- knows the content of the redacted Bristol-Myers documents at issue in this case. It was stated at oral argument that the documents have been reviewed and edited for trade secrets by Bristol-Myers employees alone, without any oversight by the court, the government, or the defense. Thus, while we might be skeptical of the defendants' asserted need for this information, we will not decide whether they have a right to access documents that could conceivably reveal information needed to preserve their rights to a fair trial. Only defense counsel know the precise contours of the defendants' case, and we are not in a position to make judgments about the _________________________________________________________________ 23. In some situations, we provide direction to the parties by addressing issues that are certain to arise upon a remand of the case, even if the issues were not discussed initially by the district court. See, e.g., New Jersey Coalition of Rooming and Boarding House Owners v. Mayor of Asbury Park, ___ F.3d ___, No. 97-5483, 1998 WL 427231, at  (3d Cir. July 30, 1998) (highlighting statutory and constitutional claims that may require further consideration upon remand). Here, however, we are unable to offer informed guidance, because we are without the benefit of a full review of the redacted materials. The complete breadth of the defendants' arguments cannot be determined unless and until this case is remanded and the district court examines the potential defenses in light of the content of the Bristol-Myers documents. 29 impact of the redacted material without having seen the material ourselves. Accordingly, we will remand this action to the district court. If the defendants raise before the district court the additional arguments that they have urged on appeal, we would expect the district court to conduct an in camera review to determine whether the documents have been properly redacted to exclude only confidential information and to assess whether what was redacted is material to the defense. In such event, because public policy requires protection of portions of a document, . . . in camera inspection by the trial judge or magistrate is unavoidable. Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 738 F.2d 587, 596 (3d Cir. 1984). Even if proof of an actual trade secret is not an element of SS 1832(a)(4) and (a)(5), an independent assessment of whether materials are nonetheless discoverable is anticipated in the language of S 1835, which provides that the district court shall enter such orders and take such other action as may be necessary and appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and all other applicable laws. Rule 16(a)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure enables the defendants to obtain documents in the government's possession that are material to the preparation of their defense, or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at trial. These principles suggest that the district court should examine the relevant portions of the Bristol-Myers documents to assess the materiality of those portions of the documents sought to be withheld. See United States v. Bocra, 623 F.2d 281, 285 (3d Cir. 1980) (The submission of discovery materials to the court for an in camera inspection and decision as to which materials are discoverable is commonly used when the Government's need for preserving confidentiality over the materials must be balanced with the defendant's constitutional right to evidence material to his defense.). We leave to the district court the ultimate resolution of these issues if raised on remand by the defendants. 30