In an action under this title, a court shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include granting protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding in-camera hearings, sealing the records of the action, and ordering any person involved in the litigation not to disclose an alleged trade secret without prior court approval.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case:
Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 3× “misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate under Section 3426.”
Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty., 9 Cal. App. 5th 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “4 The cross-referenced statute, which is part of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, § 3426.5 et seq.), requires the trial court to “preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include granting protective orders in connection with…”
Comput. Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Grp., Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980 (S.D. Cal. 1999).
· cites it 2× “” Cal.Civ. Code § 3426.5 (West 1997). 9 Thus, issuance of a protective order is essential to ensuring that a plaintiff who complies with CCP § 2019(d) can prevent inadvertent disclosure of its trade secrets.”
Hypertouch, Inc. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 839 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “" (Civ.Code, § 3426.5.) It has been noted that "[t]he `most common' form of protective measure is to limit access to the information that falls within the trade secret privilege.”
Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Superior Court, 178 Cal. App. 4th 1333 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“(Civ. Code, § 3426.5.) 4 The Charles Invention disclosure statement includes a one-page description of the Charles Invention, plus an attached abstract from an August 1999 article entitled “Identification of a Linear Heparin Binding Domain for Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus…”
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5610 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
“(Civ. Code, § 3426.5.) Firestone insists that on the record below respondent was required to deny the motion in its entirety or alternatively to first require real parties to pursue less intrusive alternatives to disclosure.”
Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chung (N.D. Cal. 2020).
· cites it 5× “210 12 permits courts to make any order appropriate under California Civil Code § 3426.5, which 13 requires courts to “preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable 14 means,” including by “sealing the records of the action.”
Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Chung (N.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 2× “California Civil Code § 3426.5 Does Not Require the Court to Seal the 2 Challenged Portions 3 First, plaintiff argues that the court “misapplied” California Civil Code § 3426.”
In Re R.M. ca4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
“We order the unredacted version of this opinion sealed.”
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.