secrecy requirement (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

secrecy requirement in California

6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2005 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc.green
scotus · 1983 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–2000
2 sentences

2000Grand Jury Proceedings and the Rule of Secrecy “The secrecy of all grand jury proceedings is ‘deeply rooted in our traditions.’ ” (McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1173 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 774 , 751 P.2d 1329 ] (McClatchy), quoting Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc. (1983) 460 U.S. 557, 572 [ 103 S.Ct. 1356, 1363-1364 , 75 L.Ed.2d 281 ].) The original purpose of the secrecy requirement, dating back to 12th century England, was to prevent the escape of offenders.

2000Grand Jury Proceedings and the Rule of Secrecy “The secrecy of all grand jury proceedings is ‘deeply rooted in our traditions.’ ” (McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1173 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 774 , 751 P.2d 1329 ] (McClatchy), quoting Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc. (1983) 460 U.S. 557, 572 [ 103 S.Ct. 1356, 1363-1364 , 75 L.Ed.2d 281 ].) The original purpose of the secrecy requirement, dating back to 12th century England, was to prevent the escape of offenders.

22
McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1988 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1999–2000
2 sentences

2000Grand Jury Proceedings and the Rule of Secrecy “The secrecy of all grand jury proceedings is ‘deeply rooted in our traditions.’ ” (McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1173 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 774 , 751 P.2d 1329 ] (McClatchy), quoting Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc. (1983) 460 U.S. 557, 572 [ 103 S.Ct. 1356, 1363-1364 , 75 L.Ed.2d 281 ].) The original purpose of the secrecy requirement, dating back to 12th century England, was to prevent the escape of offenders.

2000Grand Jury Proceedings and the Rule of Secrecy “The secrecy of all grand jury proceedings is ‘deeply rooted in our traditions.’ ” (McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1173 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 774 , 751 P.2d 1329 ] (McClatchy), quoting Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc. (1983) 460 U.S. 557, 572 [ 103 S.Ct. 1356, 1363-1364 , 75 L.Ed.2d 281 ].) The original purpose of the secrecy requirement, dating back to 12th century England, was to prevent the escape of offenders.

12
ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquistgreen
calctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004(ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1, 18 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 518 ].) The first element is the crucial one here: in order to qualify as a trade secret, the information “must be secret, and must not be of public knowledge or of a general knowledge in the trade or business.” (Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., supra, 416 U.S. at p. 475.) The secrecy requirement is generally treated as a relative concept and requires a fact-intensive analysis. (1 Milgrim on Trade Secrets (2003) § 1.07[2], pp. 1-343, 1-352.) Widespread, anonymous publication of the information over the Internet may destro

2004(ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1, 18 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 518 ].) The first element is the crucial one here: in order to qualify as a trade secret, the information “must be secret, and must not be of public knowledge or of a general knowledge in the trade or business.” (Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., supra, 416 U.S. at p. 475.) The secrecy requirement is generally treated as a relative concept and requires a fact-intensive analysis. (1 Milgrim on Trade Secrets (2003) § 1.07[2], pp. 1-343, 1-352.) Widespread, anonymous publication of the information over the Internet may destro

11
Application of State of Californiagreen
paed · 1961 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003(See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation (5th Cir. 1980) 610 F.2d 202 , 216 [former rule 6(e) applies “not only to information drawn from transcripts of grand jury proceedings, *260 but also to anything which ‘may tend to reveal what transpired before the grand jury.’ ”]; Application of State of California (E.D.Pa. 1961) 195 F.Supp. 37, 40 [although “not matters occurring before the grand jury, it seems obvious that the names of witnesses subpoenaed to testify, as well as documents subpoenaed and used by them in their deliberations, are matters ‘occurring before the grand jury.’ ”]; State ex

11
Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwestgreen
scotus · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
2 sentences

1988The secrecy of all grand jury proceedings is "deeply rooted in our traditions...." ( Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc. (1983) 460 U.S. 557, 572 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 281, 293 , 103 S.Ct. 1356 ].) This tradition of secrecy has been traced to the oath taken by grand jurors in the late 12th century, by which they swore to "`do this faithfully, that they will aggrieve no one through enmity nor show deference to any one through love, and that they will conceal those things which they have heard.'" (Kennedy & Briggs, Historical and Legal Aspects of the California Grand Jury System (1955) 43 Cal.L.Rev. 25

1988The secrecy of all grand jury proceedings is "deeply rooted in our traditions...." ( Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc. (1983) 460 U.S. 557, 572 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 281, 293 , 103 S.Ct. 1356 ].) This tradition of secrecy has been traced to the oath taken by grand jurors in the late 12th century, by which they swore to "`do this faithfully, that they will aggrieve no one through enmity nor show deference to any one through love, and that they will conceal those things which they have heard.'" (Kennedy & Briggs, Historical and Legal Aspects of the California Grand Jury System (1955) 43 Cal.L.Rev. 25

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
ABC International Traders, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America green
cal · 1997
1 sentence

2005Traders, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 1259 .) In this case, the trial court held that the secrecy requirement was not met.

12005–2005
In Re Grand Jury Investigation. green
ca5 · 1980
1 sentence

2003(See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Investigation (5th Cir. 1980) 610 F.2d 202 , 216 [former rule 6(e) applies “not only to information drawn from transcripts of grand jury proceedings, *260 but also to anything which ‘may tend to reveal what transpired before the grand jury.’ ”]; Application of State of California (E.D.Pa. 1961) 195 F.Supp. 37, 40 [although “not matters occurring before the grand jury, it seems obvious that the names of witnesses subpoenaed to testify, as well as documents subpoenaed and used by them in their deliberations, are matters ‘occurring before the grand jury.’ ”]; State ex

12003–2003
Pigman v. Evansville Press green
indctapp · 1989
1 sentence

2003“Prior to the 1983 amendment adding a provision for sealing grand jury subpoenas, [citation], federal courts were faced with the question of whether a motion for disclosure of grand jury subpoenas under Rule 6(e) would fall under the general rule of nondisclosure of ‘matters occurring before the grand jury.’ Generally, the federal courts have held that disclosure of grand jury subpoenas would reveal the names of witnesses, which are ‘matters occurring before the grand jury.’ [Citations.] The secrecy requirement of Rule 6(e) applies not only to information drawn from transcripts of grand jury p

12003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 939.1 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 7 (1933–2004) LA 6 (1957–2016) CA 6 (1988–2005) FL 4 (1959–1985) IL 3 (1978–1992) IN 3 (1972–2012) MD 2 (1989–2016) TN 2 (1993–2000)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check