## Facts

- Shelley H. was murdered in 1977, and vaginal swabs were collected during the autopsy and preserved.
- Decades later, during a cold-case investigation, a forensic agency conducted DNA testing on swabs taken from Shelley.
- The DNA testing identified a male contributor profile that matched Martell Chubbs after comparison work in 2011–2012, leading to Chubbs’s arrest and prosecution for murder.
- The prosecution’s case relied heavily on DNA evidence, including analysis performed with a proprietary probabilistic genotyping software program (TrueAllele Casework), owned by a private developer.
- Chubbs moved in the trial court to compel discovery of the software’s source code, arguing that the DNA evidence was the only evidence against him and that access to the code was necessary to test assumptions and reliability in the program’s analysis.
- The People opposed the motion on behalf of the software developer, asserting the source code was a trade secret and that disclosure would cause severe economic harm by exposing proprietary intellectual property to competitors.
- The software developer presented testimony that the source code was not needed to evaluate reliability, and that reliability could be assessed through validation materials and other information short of disclosure.
- The trial court ordered production of the source code, reasoning that Chubbs’s right to confront and cross-examine adverse evidence required access, and that a protective order could safeguard the developer’s interests.
- The People sought appellate relief through an extraordinary writ, challenging the discovery order.

## Issues

1. In a criminal case, may a trial court compel disclosure of proprietary DNA software source code claimed as a trade secret without a specific, case-focused showing that the code is necessary to the defense?
2. Did the trial court err by ordering disclosure based primarily on confrontation and fair-trial concerns, rather than applying the trade-secret framework requiring a threshold showing of relevance and need?
3. Was extraordinary writ relief appropriate to prevent compelled disclosure of asserted trade-secret material before trial?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the People’s petition for writ relief.
- The court vacated the trial court’s order compelling production of the TrueAllele source code.
- The court accepted that the source code qualified for trade-secret protection and held the defense had not made a sufficiently specific showing of why disclosure of the code itself was required to contest the DNA evidence.
- The court concluded the trial court’s order rested on generalized fairness and confrontation reasoning and did not reflect the required threshold showing needed to override trade-secret protection.
- The court indicated that the defense could pursue other methods to test reliability (such as cross-examining witnesses and using available validation information) without forcing disclosure of the source code.

## Legal Principles

- Proprietary source code may be protected as a trade secret, and courts may limit disclosure to prevent unnecessary harm to the owner.
- A party seeking disclosure of trade-secret material must make a specific, concrete showing that the information is relevant and necessary for the requesting party’s case; generalized claims that disclosure would be helpful are not enough.
- In criminal discovery disputes involving trade secrets, constitutional trial rights do not automatically require disclosure of proprietary code whenever software is used; courts must still apply the statutory trade-secret analysis and require a focused justification for disclosure.
- Protective orders can reduce the risk of harm from disclosure, but they do not eliminate the need for the requesting party to first justify why disclosure should be ordered at all.
- Writ review is an available vehicle to address discovery orders that would require disclosure of alleged trade secrets, because disclosure cannot be undone once it occurs.

## Conclusion

People v. Chubbs, 2015 WL 139069 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015), involved a pretrial writ challenge to a trial court order compelling production of TrueAllele DNA software source code in a cold-case murder prosecution. The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and vacated the disclosure order, holding that the source code was protected as a trade secret and that the defense had not made a sufficiently specific showing that access to the code itself was necessary to challenge the DNA evidence, as opposed to using other means such as cross-examination and available validation information.


People v. Chubbs, 2015 WL 139069 (2015)