Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.469 (2026)

Preservation of trade secret by court; methods

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      646.469 Preservation of trade secret by court; methods. In any action brought under ORS 646.461 to 646.475, the 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 or ordering any person involved in the litigation not to disclose an alleged trade secret without prior court approval. [1987 c.537 §6]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1996–2013 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Sports Mgmt. News, Inc. v. Nachtigal, 921 P.2d 1304 (Or. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Sports Mgmt. News, Inc. v. Nachtigal, 921 P.2d 1304 (Or. 1996). · cites it 19× “Adidas obtained the challenged circuit court order that restrained publication by SMNI pursuant to express authority in the Act, specifically ORS 646.469, which provides: “In any action brought under ORS 646.”
Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 132 P.3d 5 (Or. 2006). · cites it 2× “2d 1304 (1996) (quoting ORS 646.469). This court described that statute as authorizing a "classic" prior restraint, because it permitted a judge to require a third-party publisher who had not committed a crime in obtaining its information "to submit its speech for court approval…”
State v. MacBale, 305 P.3d 107 (Or. 2013). “By contrast, when trade secrets or communications alleged to fall within the lawyer-client or physician-patient privilege are involved, hearings on the admissibility of evidence or application of a privilege raise the prospect of disclosing to the public the very information…”
Oregon Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Dep't of Corr., 966 P.2d 819 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “ORS 646.469. The court held that the statute on its face violated Article I, section 8, because it restricted the content of speech and the restrictions did not fall within a historical exception to section 8.”
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.