N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 66
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-156 (2026)

Preservation of secrecy

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 66 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In an action under this Article, a court shall protect an alleged trade secret by reasonable steps which may include granting protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding in-camera hearings, sealing the records of the action subject to further court order, and ordering any person who gains access to an alleged trade secret during the litigation not to disclose such alleged trade secret without prior court approval. (1981, c. 890, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 931 F. Supp. 1280 (E.D.N.C. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 931 F. Supp. 1280 (E.D.N.C. 1996). · cites it 2× “Where a real trade secret exists, courts should obviously avoid discussion of the particular secret so as not to deprive plaintiffs of the rights they sought to vindicate by filing suit.”
France v. France, 705 S.E.2d 399 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “”); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-156 (2009) (“In an action under this Article, a court shall protect an alleged trade secret by reasonable steps which may include granting protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding in-camera hearings, sealing the records of the…”
Unimin Corp. v. Gallo, 2014 NCBC 43 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “Furthermore, upon request of the parties, the Court closed the courtroom pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 66-156 before commencing the hearing on Plaintiff’s P.”
Scigrip, Inc. v. Osae, 2018 NCBC 10 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2018). “In essence, Plaintiffs contend that the redacted material constitutes Plaintiffs’ trade secrets and confidential information, as well as information designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under the protective order entered in this litigation.”
Bah v. Sampson Bladen Oil Co., Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2025). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-156 . Where state law mandates the confidentiality of a document, the court must determine whether the right of access outweighs the public policy expressed in the state statutes.”
Taylor v. Fernandes, 2018 NCBC 4 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d at 407 (noting that “[c]ertain kinds of evidence may be such that the public policy factors in favor of confidentiality outweigh the public policy factors supporting free access of the public to public records and proceedings,” including “trade secret” information) (citing…”
MichJeff, LLC v. FCX Global, Inc (E.D.N.C. 2024). “§ 66-156 , which provides that “a court shall protect an alleged trade secret by reasonable steps which may include .”
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.