Trade Secrets
 Abusive Discovery for Use in International Proceedings
Intel Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
No. 02-572
U. S. Supreme Court
The Court ruled 7-1 that a federal law "authorizes but does not require" federal courts to order the production of documents from persons residing in their districts for use in a foreign proceeding. NCLC had argued that the Ninth Circuit had erroneously expanded the ability of companies operating in foreign nations to seek one-way discovery of sensitive information from their U. S.-based rivals in U. S. courts.
Amicus brief in support of petition for cert. filed 11/15/02. Cert. granted 11/10/03. Amicus brief on the merits filed 12/26/03. Oral argument held 4/20/04. Decision 6/21/04.
Trade Secrets
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Garamendi
No. S10225
California Supreme Court
NCLC argued that a California Court of Appeals' decision allowing regulatory disclosure of confidentially filed trade secret information under the Insurance Code violates due process and threatens to undermine all trade secret privileges, including the state's longstanding recognition of trade secrets as constitutionally protected property rights. The California Supreme Court ruled that the insurers could not claim a trade secret privilege with regard to information that was legitimately related to rate information.
Amicus brief filed 6/19/02. Decision 4/26/04.
 Abusive Discovery for Use in International ProceedingsIntel Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.No. 02-572 U. S. Supreme Court
As urged by NCLC, the Supreme Court agreed to review a Ninth Circuit decision that NCLC claims erroneously expands the ability of companies operating in foreign nations to seek one-way discovery of sensitive information from their U. S. based rivals in U. S. courts.
Amicus brief in support of petition for cert. filed 11/15/02. Cert. granted 11/10/03.
Media Access to Sealed Record Containing Trade SecretsBridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Chicago Tribune Company No. 00-15133-I U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Agreeing with NCLC, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia decision holding that Bridgestone/Firestone had to show "extraordinary circumstances" to protect documents subject to a protective order from disclosure, which were of great economic value to the company. NCLC's brief argued that the company should only have to provide "good cause" as to why its documents should be protected from media scrutiny and the Eleventh Circuit agreed, remanding the case back to the district court to determine if the documents should be disclosed under that standard.
Amicus brief filed 10/31/00. Decision 8/29/01. Decision 8/29/01.
|
Share This Page