Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS / PART 1. RELIEF / TITLE 5. UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 3426.11 (2026)

Uniform Trade Secrets Act

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 47, in any legislative or judicial proceeding, or in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law and reviewable pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the voluntary, intentional disclosure of trade secret information, unauthorized by its owner, to a competitor or potential competitor of the owner of the trade secret information or the agent or representative of such a competitor or potential competitor is not privileged and is not a privileged communication for purposes of Part 2 (commencing with Section 43) of Division 1.

This section does not in any manner limit, restrict, impair, or otherwise modify either the application of the other subdivisions of Section 47 to the conduct to which this section applies or the court’s authority to control, order, or permit access to evidence in any case before it.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or otherwise impair, the capacity of persons employed by public entities to report improper government activity, as defined in Section 10542 of the Government Code, or the capacity of private persons to report improper activities of a private business.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2020 · leading case: Wentland v. Wass, 126 Cal. App. 4th 1484 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wentland v. Wass, 126 Cal. App. 4th 1484 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “) The court noted there was no claim the disclosures were judicially compelled.”
Nelson v. Tucker Ellis, LLP, 262 Cal. Rptr. 3d 250 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “4th 703, 713 [“the custodian of materials protected by an evidentiary privilege owes a duty to the holder of the privilege to claim the privilege and to take actions necessary to ensure that the materials are not disclosed improperly” (italics added)]; Civ. Code, § 3426.11, 1st…”
Sgromo v. Batt, No. B236555 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2013). “3d 307, 317-320 ), or the unauthorized disclosure of a trade secret (Civ. Code, § 3426.11). II. Analysis Assuming for the sake of argument that Sgromo and Wide Eyes Marketing have demonstrated that the litigation privilege does not bar their intentional interference claims, they…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.