20050311_apple_decision

I I ~ . 15 4 14 11 : 10 1 5 : 6 9 16 17 12 13 20 18 21 19 26 25 24 23 22 25, DOE APPLE i' Esq. in on for Department regularly inclusive, a ofO'Melveny protective 1, vs. The an unknown motion for 14, order hearing Hon. of & individual; blocking non-parties INC. COMPUTER, Plaintiff, Myers SUPERIOR Defendants James on . March represented P. a subpoena Kleinberg, Monish 4t COURT, 2005. Plaintiff Bhatia; issued and Does 2- The presiding. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) -1- matter by ORDER Case Kasper Apple. COUNTY SANTA OF Plaintiff was No.: George CLARA Thomas Jade, AFTER heard BY l-Q4-CY-032178 Apple F Riley, and on Chi E. Superior cj HEARING Jason Computer M!R the Moore (ENDORSED) Esq. IAI STATE OFCALIFORNIA civil O'Grady rOR~E 1 COUnly ~ and ill, tJ! discovery 20~ ("Apple") David of Esq. u~ve OtliC1lrlClerk , Santa . ("movants") CIa of Eberhart, D ra calendar DEPUTy came :, ,~ j ~ 1 Tomlinson & Zisko, Richard R. Wiebe, Esq., Terry Gross, Esq. of Gross & Belski,land Kurt 2 3 4 5 6 Opsahl, Esq" of Electronic Frontier FoundatioI1representedthe movants,2 Although not required to issue opinions or statementsof decision when decidu1gcaseson the motion calendar, Code of Civil Procedure §632, 4 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed, 1997) Trial, §306, p.461, the Court is doing so here becauseit believes it may be helpful to counsel and the parties to do so. 7 8 9 10 II I. LIMITS RULING OF This motion is about discovery; namely, a single subpoena served by Apple on Nfox. The order of this Court does not go beyond the questions necessaryto deten11ine this motion 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)1s, any defenses thoseclaims.Thoseissues or to remainfor another 13 ll.BACKGROUND THIS day, 15 14 A. The 16 17 Apple filed its co\uplaint on December 13,2004 alleging that unnamed individuals or entities ("Does I through 25") had leaked specific, trade secret infonnation about new Apple That infonnation for GarageBand, and PowerPage. 18 productsto severalonline websites, including AppleInsider 19 was published by these sites and regarded a FireWire audio Litigation 20 codenamed c, Asteroid" or "Q7." On December 14, 2004 Judge interface William Elfving of this 21 granted Apple's application to take expedited document discovery. On February 4,2005 Court 22 is not counselof recordin this case, at his requestthe Court allowed him to participatein d1c but hearing counsel for Apple did not object. Mr. Gross is counsel of record in another, reccntly filed action by 23 I Mr. 24 by Apple which may raisesimilar issues. 25 26 2 On March 3,2005 Department14 of the Cow'twhich i$ assigncd civil discoverycalendar, the postedits telephonic tentative ruling in this case, which denied moving parties' motion for a protective order. In accordance with Court's usual practice in tIlis Departmcnt, a reasoned opinion wu not included with the tentative ruling. By timely d\e notifying telephone; Gross Apple and the Court of their opposition to the tentative ruling all parties propcrly appeared for hearing the B. next morning. -2. the 26 15 13 10 25 23 19 17 24 21 20 6 2 22 16 9 8 1 5 4 3 7 18 14 12 protocol("IP") Product relating confidential information, Court 11 4 as values subpoena, violations disclosing Some even granted might of It (d) (c) (a) The To (b) All a to , and casual great is and all all the all of their date, all documen~ refer apparent movants source. California and images~ documents communications documents Product Apple's the address(es), significance. sources to student Nfox has the moving Specifically that brought subpoenaed moving has relating including ("Disclosing request law, as of this received identifying parties not well that and partic~ On neither the discovery, to objected to from issue e-mail as the photographs, Apple instant permit the Nfox.com have the as from one Person(s)"), the "bloggers." or knows) any identity benefits address(es); no to has hand motion to federal or specific limited individual any right sent the sought for is of there sketches) DiscJosing of The rife subpoenas .3to privilege to e~mail seeking any as including discovery Cali received from or sent to any Disclosing person(s). any site anonymous the it with is or person is, the fomi www.dictiOTlarvoreference.comdefines Disclosing individuals following messages schematics Nfox subpoena, no discovery is currently outstanding. calls complexities a nor movants' Person(s) protective a's true on directed or the into "shield any entity speech. name(s)) California infonnation~ that Person(s) question who grounds claim and relating at order who may law." and N°fox, pl-ovided renderings address(es), to supplied restrictions. identify blocking issues shield relating "free to and, the November 22, November 23) and November 26, 2004. These documents include: the email infonnation speech" and other law Product; the of information the to internet competing the bar provider for PowerPage. Apple is seeking the identities of the source or sources for this On the service subpoena.3 Movants claim to be '~oumalists.'.4 On that basis they claim a privilege from regarding an unreleased Apple product code-named "Asteroid" or "Q97" (the "Product"), including po stings that appeared on PowerPage.com (the "Web site") on November 19) blog ) Although askedto makean "advisory ruling" on other,unserved subpoenas, Court decljne~ do so. the to than Product the which, the line diary; a per50nalcmonologicallog ofrhoughtspublishedon a webpage;also calledWeb1og, Web log." Apple's position is the acquisition and dissemination of the alleged trade secrets are as the "on 1 2 otherhand,thereis the undisputed right to protectintel1ectual propertyas expressed California in civil and criminal law. Before analyzing and deciding these issues the Court reiterates: 3 This is a discovery issue. The discovery statute provides, in part, 4 (a) Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with that: this article, party may obtain discoveryregardinganymatter,not privileged,that is relevantto the subject matterinvolved in the pendingaction or to the detennination any motion madein that actioJ:l, of if the Jnattereither is itself admissiblein evidence appears or reasonably calculatedto leadto the 6 discoveryof admissibleevidence.Discoverymay relateto the claim or defense the pal1y of 7 seekingdiscoveryor of any otherparty to the action. Discoverymay be obtainedof the identity andlocation of personshavingknowledgeof any discoverable matter,aswell as of the existence, S description,nature,custody,condition,andlocationof any document, tangib1e thing, or land or otherproperty.Codeof Civil Procedure 2017(a) § 9 Discover is given a broad reach in California courts; at the same time the courts have y 5 10 11 12 ftequently balanced competing interests in this regard, for example, iJ:ldividllal privacy rights. See Witkin, Summary ofColifornia Law, (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law §§ 456-473, pages 13 642-660. But, as discussed infra, the Court does find that Apple has made out aprimafacie any 14 15 16 that the information at issue constituted proprietary trade secretsand that it has taken adequate stepsby way ofintemal investigations to justify further, external discovery as it seekshere. See, e.g., Declarations of Robin Zonic, " 4-8. Al Ortiz) Jr., ~ 17 B. Trade 18 Apple 11as maintained that the infoxmation published by the moving parties qualifies as 19 trade secrets under Califomia law. That law is found primarily in two statutes: the Unifonn 20 Secrets (the "UTSA") 2-3. adopted in 1985,5 and Penal Code Trade Secrets Act, Civil Code §§ 3426 et. 21 22 23 §499c.Thosestatutes provide,in pertinentpart: Civil Code § 3426.1. Defmitions: *** 24 2S 26 ~As with other laws titled "Uniform,.. thereare differences betweenCalifornia's versionof this taw and the original version,but thosedifferencesarenot of consequence here.The UTSA supplanted California'g commonlaw of trade $ecrets derivedfrom the Restatement Torts 2d. of seq.) -4- case - 1 (b) "Misappropriation" means: 2 (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to 3 that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; know (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a 4 5 person who; (A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; (B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that or his or her knowledge 6 of the trade secret was: (i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire 7' 8 9 10 it' (ii) Acquired under circumstancesgiving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to that it was a trade secret and that lmowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake. know 11 *** (d) "Trade secret"meansinfomtation,including a formula, pattern,compilation,program, device, method, technique, Or process) 12 13 (1) Derives 14 generally known to the public independent or to other that: economic persons who value, actual or potential, can obtain economic or from not being value from its disclosure or use; and 15 (2) Is the subjectof efforts that arereasonable underthe circumstances to 16 17 maintain its secrecy. Penal Code § 499c: 18 *** (9)"Tradesecret" meanS information, including formula, a pattern, 19 compilation,program,device,method,technique,or process, that: 20. (A) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from beIng generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from not 21 disclosure or use; and (B) Is the subjectof efforts that arereasonable underthe circumstances to 22 maintainits secrecy, (b) Every personis guilty of theft who, with intent to depriveor withhold the connol of a 23 trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use its 24 25 26 to the use of another, does any of the following~ (1) Steals,takes,carriesaway,or useswithout authorization,a tradesecret, (2) Fraudulentlyappropriates article representing tradesecretentrusted any a to (3) Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or him or causes be madea copy of any article representing tradesecret. to a her. -5- i or - 1 *** to anypresentor fonner agent,employee servantof another,a benefit as an inducement! or bribe or rewardfor conveying,deliveringor otherwisemakingavailablean article representing trade a secretownedby his or her presentor formerprincipal, employeror master!to any personnot authorized the ownerto receiveor acquirethe tradesecretand everypresentor fonner agent, by employee! servant,who solicits, accepts, or receives takesa benefit asan inducement! or bribe or rewardfor conveyulg,deliveringor otherwisemaking availablean article representing trade a secretownedby his or her present fonner principal, employeror master,to anypersonnot or authorized the ownerto receiveor acquirethe tradesecret,shall be punishedby imprisonment by in the stateprison, or in a countyjail not exceeding year,or by a fine not exceedingfive one thousand dollars ($ 5.000),or by both that fine andimprisonment. (d) In a prosecution a violation of this section,it shall be no defense for that the person returnedor intendedto retum the arocle. Thesestatutes reflect this state!sstrongcommitmentto the protectionof proprietary (C) Every person who promises, offers or gives, or conspires to promise or offer to give, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 business information. SeeIntegral Dev. Corp. v. Weissenbach (2002) 99 Ca!. App. 4th576, 11 12 13 rights. 14 that trade secret laws apply to everyone regardless of their status, title or chosen profession. The As discussed infra, the United States and Califomja Supreme Courts have underscored Magnec()mp Corp. v. AtheneCo. (1989)209 Cal. App. 3d 526. The statutes also supportthe compellinginterestof disclosure which may, in the propercivil case,outweighFirst Amendment 15 California Legislature has not carved out any exception to these statutes for journalists, 16 bloggers or anyone else. 17 For these reasonsthe 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 19 by Apple. The drawing was taken from a confidential set of slides clearly labeled cc Apple 1\ Asteroid" Need- created 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 threedays,November19,22 and23,2004. The Court is convincedby Apple's 23 24 25 26 presentation, including the materialsproducedin camerathat this action haspassed the thresholds necessary discoveryto proceed. for .6. . 1 C. Joumalists and privilege 2 Much ofmovants' papers and argument is a recitation of the obvious: the telms 3 importance of the First Amendment and the value of free speech which this Court 4 This principle was explored in Ford V$. Lane, (E.D, Mich., 1999) 67 F. Supp. 2d 745, rccognizes. 5 "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press by 6 providing, 'Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speecb" OT of the 751: press. and . 1 8 9 prevent 'The First Amendment applies to speechon the Internet. Rel1O American Civil Libertie.)' v. Union, (1997) 521 U.S. 844. The primary purpose of the guaranteeof freedom of the press is to prior restraints on publication. Near v. Minnesota, (1931) 283 U.S. 697. Even a 10 temporary restraint on pure speech is improper absent the !'most compelling circumstances," In 11 theMatter of ProvidenceJournal Co., (1st Cir. 1986)820 F.2d 1342,1351.The First 12 Amendment applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. Near at 707", 13 14 Pentagon The broad parameters of the prior restraint doctrine were further explained in the Papers case, New York Times Co. v. Um'tedStates, (1971) 403 U.S. 713. There, the 15 federal government sought to enjoin The New York Times and The Washington Post 16 publishing a classified study on U.S. policy-making in Vietnam. The Vietnam conflict from 17 ongoing,andthe govenunentarguedthat the publicationof the classifiedinformation might 18 damage national interest.The Court observed the that,because prior restrainton speech any is 19 presumptivelyinvalid underthe First Amendment, government the bore a heavy burdenof 20 showingajustification for the restraint.Finding that the government not met its burden,the had 21 Court deniedthe injunction.Id. at 714. 22 But the pendingmotion is not for injunctive relief againstanyoneand the Pentagon 23 Papers caseand similar authoritiesarenot on point. 24 25 analysis First, the issueof prior restraintis not beforethe Court. The California Supreme Court's in DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner, (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 864 is of particular 26 value. In that case, in which defendant was represented by some of the same .7. counsel was . Yc",--4 22 3 2 21 19 20 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 1 5 26 8 2S 9 6 7 . 23 Id., prohibit Function: j mass 1 Function: jour.nal-ist 'Journalist" Vopper, protection during Branzburg sourceS Supreme injunctive create debate 24 OUr-DB a : at a audience person 881. a I argument. is Movants Similarly do legitimate courts (2001) noun nOun frustrated taste of facts or public; or representing Court description relief of not The -Ism v. engaged has interest the Hayes, have from 532 allowed Court become - contend privilege the which public by movants, of in U. a incidentally (1972) claim events license journaliSJn; went offering S. the more necessarily they interest 514,532 against 2 : a personwho keeps3. journal of on without injunction 408 to L~rivilege" complicated are to property "The mere fact that DVD CCA's e$pecially violate U.S. note enjoining trade in journalists. an revealing (indeed, their raises attempt 665,691 that to secrets criminallaws 6 The Merriam-Wcbstcr online dictionary states: protection : issue. disclosure." is a "It issues speech writer as at the overstated their interpretation They is the may Counsel parties something -8or variety sources of in to editor have make prior order the Supreme Court observed that such Id., trade had in for for some c ofinfonnation. of this this restraint at : as secrets." done of to a the writing media 8840 news protect claim Penal context. a link moving mystery discovery, Ultimately, roedi1W1 not designcd has to because Code [do, a a Reporters present legitimate expanded.6 public parties at as b Defining §499c. to : 883. to Id. a they appeal in how writer here issue admitted at the And, and Bartnicki property seek 520); free But to who what ~ context does CWTent their the furthcr, the even and aims this is "[T]he First Amendment does not not right," a v. open pQpular at of if a 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 the 2 a : writing designedfQ{publicationin a newspaper magazine : writing characterized a direct presentation Qr b by ~ ~ , 1 movantsarejournalists,this is not the equivaleDt of a freepass.Thejournalist's privilege is not 2 3 absolute. For example, joun1a)ists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime. As the Supreme Court in Bran.zburg stated: 4 5 6 "The preference for anonymity of those confidential informants involved in actual criroj.naJconductis presumably productof their desireto escape a criminal prosecution,andthis preference, while understandable, is hardly deserving of constitutional protection." 408 U.S. at 7 691. 8 D. The Mitchell 9 The balancing of standard interests between discovery and privilege was addressed by 10 11 California Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Superior Court, (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 268,276. In that case, at pages 279-84, the following five-part test was articulated for weigl1ing whether discovery 12 13 14 15 16 17 should be pennitted over an assertion of the Federal privilege: (I) "Nature of the litigation andwhetherthe reporteris a party:" Although not yet named as defendants, is certainlypossible"journalists" may be; it certainly Mr. O'Grady's declaration suggeststhis possibility. (2) "Does discovery sought go to the heart of plaintiffs claim~" Without tbjs discovery Apple's case will be crippled, since it will not know the 18 defendants upon whom it should serve process. 19 20 21 22 (3) "Have other sources of information been The moving parties maintain Apple should have done more investigating up to this point, including the unusual step of noticing the depositions of its own employees. But the Court is convinced) upon reviewing Apple's public and in camera materials that a thorough investigation 23 hasbeendoneand all alternativemeans havebeenexhausted. 24 exhausted?" the '1 !ii ;, (4) "What is the public good served protectingthe misappropriation tradesecrets?" by of 2S 26 .9. j ,~_.,~...,~~4'"' II ,, 1. Movants did not presenta persuasive reason "public good" andnever answered of the as to why there was a true public bel1efit from disclosureSee Mitchell v. 2 Court's 3 Superior inquiry Court at 283 and DVD Copy Control Association v. Bunner at 4 (5) [Paraphrased] In the context of a detamation case~ should the Cou11require the 5 plaintiff to make aprimajacie showing of 6 7 8 9 This is not a defamation case, and movants do not believe this factor is pertinent. In any event, the Court finds that Apple has made aprimafacie caseof misappropriation and this is yet another reason to allow discovery. E. The Shjeld Law 10 11 12 13 Easily overstated in its power, "[t]he description 'shield law' conjures up visions of broad protection and sweeping privilege. The California shield law, however, is unique in that it affords only limited protection. It does not create a privilege for newspeople, rather it provides an and jmmunity from being adjudged in contempt. This rather basic distinction has been misstated apparently misunderstood by members of the news media and our courts as well." 14 falsity? 883-85- KSDO 15 Superior Court, (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3de 375,379-80. 16 17 terms: 18 California EvidenceCode §§ 1070(a) (b). citedby movants,arequite specific in their and (a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon newspaper, magazine, otherperiodicalpublication,or by a pressassociation wire service, or or 19 or any personwho hasbeenso connected employed,cannotbe adjudgedin contemptby a or 20 judicial, legislative,administrative body, or any otherbody having the power to issuesubpoenas, for refusingto disclose,in any proceeding definedin Section901,the sourceof any as 21 infonnation procuredwhile so connected employedfor publication in a newspaper, or magazine or otherperiodical publication,or for refusingto discloseanyunpublishedinfonnation obtained 22 or preparedin gathering, receivingor processing infom1ation communicationto the public. of for 23 24 a radio (b) Nor cana radioor television news reporter otherperson or connected or employed with by or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed. be adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so 25 connected or employed for news or news commentary puxposes on radio or television, or so refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering~receiving or 26 processing infonIlation for communication to the public. of ,10"""'-""",,"",,'" . ' i for a v. I .' , 26 24 23 22 19 18 16 21 13 11 20 12 to 17 2 4 3 14 9 8 7 6 5 1 15 25 ill. same containing definitions. are (1974) including: Branzburg, Copy true, rears 8 7 fundamental counsel. and Control 418 The The The Finally, In At The The Based the is this the the U.S. As psychotherapist-patient legislative marital attorney-client executive 408 not infonnation reason: hearing Association on case, same such it transfonned U.S. 683 that is communications accepting worth AND information it there An The experienced ago. undisputed Carpenter facts Wall v. are Street United CONCLUSION 691. privilege language that the is privilege, Journal stolen divulged 8 M(. movants States, DISPOSITION noting v- is privilege, by Bunner, no O'Grady for and property, of reporter license its (1987) on (1972) that present falls the fom admitted the privilege, its privilege, Evidence at took President other 484 was facts hard squarely conferred 874-88; Gravel or just purposes die U.S. indicted who privileges drive presented, to infonnation as Evidence 19 Evidence such Code .11receives any under of v. Bartnicki, on and (or United the that physical limitations. anyone convicted not) § United have the 956 and it Apple's Code it.9 Code is States, wouJd UTSA turned v. been far Therefore, to item, Vopper, for § States, § violate from allegations 1018. around 981 408 similarly trading be. and The physician-patient privilege, EvidenceCode§§ 997,999 such clear The United U.S. Penal (2001) valid and on the as information that inside put 606 circumscribed, a Court about Code States criminal laptop 532 it Mr. on information U.S. used trade the §499c O'Grady v. computer PowerPage Nixon, laws. remains 514, the secrets ajoumalist, reporter,blogger,or anythingelseneednot be decidedat this juncture for this twenty qualifies for relief from the subpoena the groundsadvanced.7 on Whetherhe fits the definition of with essentiallyno addedvalue. As notedat the outset,the Court declinesto make"advisory rulings" with respect to Monish Bhatia,KasperJade,PowerPage, Applelmider asmovantsrequest. or DVD For example,docwnentss~t by a client to his/herlawyer do not become"privileged" simply by bcing sentto the site !"}"" . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Apple and chaI"gedword "fence" to describe parties who acted as go-betweensbetween the generator of the secret property and the recipients of it. Although specifically asked of colillsel for movants, the Court did not hear rebuttal to the analogy at the hearing. The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the UrSA or the PenalCodefor journalists- howeverdefined- or anyone else. Much of the movants' papers and their oral argument stressedthe public's interest in its products. Movants miss the point. Of course the public is interested in Apple. It is 8 9 a company which has achieved iconic status. One need no further proof of this point than to review the personal history of movant O'Grady who, according to his own declaration "has been 10 working with Macintosh computers since 1985 ... co-founded the first dedicated Apple 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 OpeningBrief at 4: 8-20. Mr. O'Grady is far from alone:the public hashad, and continuesto 14 havea profound interestin gossipaboutApple. Thereforeit is not swprisiDgthat hundredsof 15 thousands "hits" on a websiteaboutApple haveandwill happen. an interested of But public is 16 not the sameasthepublic interest. 1.7 At the hearing the Court specifically asked what public interest was served by publishing 18 private, proprietary product information that was ostensibly stolen and turned over to those Power 19 no business reason for getting it. Movants' response was to again reiterate the 20 2\ 22 interest of the public in Apple, rather than justifying why citizens have a right to know the private and secret information of a business entity, be it Apple, H-P, a law firm, a newspaper, Coca-Cola, a restaurant, or anyone else. Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety, 23 or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement self-evident 24 25 26 worse by our public officials, the movants are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information. -12- ..I~ or with ~ 1 Indeed, a careful review ofmovants' opening and reply papers and the hearing transcript 2 3 revealsthat movantsneveradequately dealtwith the issueof the llltersectionof tradesecretsand journalistic privilege. Movants' opening brief does not mention the UTSA or Penal Code § 499c. I 4 The reply brief states, "This motion does not implicate the issue of whether Apple's trade 5 was protected speech; .. ." Movants' Opening Brief, at 7: 4-5. When skilled lawyers 6 7 8 ignore an essential issuethat the Court specificallyinquiresabout,it sendsa message they have little to sayon the subject.And if, asmovantsargue,tradesecrets alwaysat risk - a "sieve," are at Penal Code? quoting Kewanee Oil v. Bicron, (1974) 416 U.S. 489~9010 -how does one explain the 9 explicit statutory language of the UTSA 10 Let therebe no doubt:nothing in this orderis meantto precludethe exchange opinions of and ideas, speculation about the future, or analysesof known facts. The rumor and opinion mills may continue to run at full speed. What underlies this decision is the publishing of inforr:nation that at this early stage of the litigation fits squarely within the definition of trade secret. The right I 11 12 13 I 14 to keep and maintain proprietary information and as such is a right which the California 15 16 and courts have long affinned and which is essential to the future oftecbnology and innovation generally. The Court sees no reason to abandon that right even ifit were to assume, arguendo, 17 movants are "journalists" as they claim they 18 19 This order For all of the above reasons the Court denies the movants' request for a protective order. is stayed for seven cowt days to allow the parties, or any of them, to exercise their 20 appellate 21 IT rights. IS SO 22 Dated: March ORDERED LL 23 24 2S 26 10 Citing Kewaneeis interestingbecause that casethe United StatesSupreme in CO\n1 affinned the co-equalstatusof trade secrets with patents as mcthodologieg for protecting proprietary information. 2005 are. Honorable JamesP. Kleinberg Judge of the Superior Court -13- legislature largely secret