## Facts

- A large law firm’s internal personnel and human-resources documents were removed from its offices without consent and delivered to an attorney representing current and former employees in disputes against the firm.
- The firm sued the attorney and his firm for specific recovery of the documents and injunctive relief governing possession and use.
- By stipulation, a special master reviewed the documents and found they were not attorney-client privileged, attorney work product, or trade secrets, but many were intended to be confidential HR communications.
- The trial court found the firm owned the documents, employees understood them to be confidential, and the materials related to employees’ work duties rather than their personal employment status.
- The trial court found the documents were improperly removed and were wrongfully possessed by the attorney as agent of the unknown person who removed them.
- The trial court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the attorney to surrender documents in his possession and to surrender any similar firm documents he might obtain in the future.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer has a protectable property interest in confidential internal personnel/HR documents even when they are not privileged, work product, or trade secrets.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by preliminarily enjoining opposing counsel from retaining and requiring return of documents wrongfully removed from the employer.
3. Whether public policy favoring vigorous advocacy prevents injunctive relief that compels return of such documents.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the employer showed a protectable ownership and right-to-possession interest in the documents.
- The court accepted the trial court’s findings that the documents were wrongfully removed and wrongfully possessed by opposing counsel.
- The court held the absence of privilege, work-product protection, or trade-secret status did not defeat the employer’s entitlement to specific recovery and injunctive relief.
- The court found no abuse of discretion under the preliminary-injunction standard, including likelihood of success and balance of interim harms.

## Legal Principles

- Ownership and right to possess confidential internal business records can support specific recovery and injunctive relief even if the records are not privileged, work product, or trade secrets.
- A court may order return of wrongfully removed documents and restrict continued possession when evidence supports wrongful removal and wrongful possession by the recipient.
- In reviewing a preliminary injunction, an appellate court defers to supported factual findings and asks whether the trial court reasonably evaluated likelihood of success and the balance of interim harms.
- Public policy favoring zealous representation does not justify an attorney’s retention of an opposing party’s wrongfully obtained property; litigation may proceed through lawful discovery channels.

## Conclusion

The court upheld injunctive relief compelling opposing counsel to return and not retain an employer’s confidential internal HR documents that were improperly taken and delivered to counsel, concluding the employer’s property and confidentiality interests supported relief even without privilege or trade-secret protection.


Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Schectman, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1279, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 698 (Ct. App. 1997)