![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Supremecourtofcaliforniamaincourthouse.jpg/640px-Supremecourtofcaliforniamaincourthouse.jpg&w=640&q=50)
Apple v. Does
California Courts of Appeal case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Apple v. Does?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Apple v. Does (O'Grady v. Superior Court) was a high-profile legal proceeding in United States of America notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter.
Apple v. Does (O'Grady v. Superior Court (Apple)) | |
---|---|
![]() California Court of Appeal, 6th District | |
Court | California Courts of Appeal |
Full case name | O'Grady v. Superior Court (Apple) |
Decided | May 26, 2006 (2006-05-26) |
Citations | O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App. 4th 1423, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 72, modified by O'Grady v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App. 4th 675b, 2006. |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Santa Clara County Superior Court, case CV032178; Hon. James P. Kleinberg |
Subsequent actions | O'Grady v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App. 4th 675b, 2006. |
Holding | |
Trial court reversed; motion for a protective order must be granted | |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Rushing, P.J. |
The case began after several online news journals published articles concerning unreleased Apple products. Apple issued subpoenas seeking the identity of the source who leaked the information, information Apple considered a trade secret. The online news journals then sought judicial orders to protect their sources. The matter was heard by a trial judge who ruled in Apple's favor; that ruling was then appealed by the defendant online journalists.
The appellate court held that trade secrets do not, by themselves, categorically transcend freedom of the press, that there is no relevant legal distinction between journalistic blogging online and traditional print journalism with regard to the shield law, and that Apple's attempt to subpoena the email service provider of one of the journals was a violation of the U.S. federal law known as the Stored Communications Act.[1]