## Facts

- Joseph and Lyn Stadish sued Southern California Gas Company for personal injuries allegedly caused by toxic emissions from an underground natural gas storage field near Playa del Rey.
- Lyn served broad document requests; the Gas Company objected on privilege grounds but allowed inspection of roughly 40 boxes and provided a privilege log.
- Lyn’s counsel and associate Bernard Endres inspected the boxes and selected documents for copying.
- After learning Endres had protested and campaigned against its projects, the Gas Company refused to provide copies and, for the first time, asserted the trade secret privilege and proprietary-information concerns, fearing misuse outside the litigation.
- Joseph served a separate production request to which the Gas Company did not respond.
- The plaintiffs moved to compel production; the Gas Company sought a protective order based on trade secrets.
- The trial court denied the motion to compel and granted the protective order; plaintiffs sought writ relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court had authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031, subdivision (e) to issue a protective order based on asserted trade secrets and proprietary information.
2. Whether the trial court used proper procedures in evaluating the trade secret claim, including requiring an adequate showing, balancing confidentiality against plaintiffs’ need, and considering narrower protective conditions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the trial court had authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031, subdivision (e) to issue an appropriate protective order.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court failed to employ proper procedures for assessing the trade secret claim and fashioning relief.
- A writ of mandate issued directing the trial court to vacate the orders denying the motion to compel and granting the protective order, and to reconsider the motions under the correct standards on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts may issue discovery protective orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031, subdivision (e) to prevent unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense, including by setting conditions on production.
- The trade secret privilege (Evidence Code section 1060 et seq.) does not support blanket denial of discovery without a document-specific showing that the information qualifies as a trade secret and that disclosure would cause sufficient harm.
- Courts must balance the interest in maintaining trade secret confidentiality against the requesting party’s need for the information to fairly prepare and present its case.
- When confidentiality concerns are valid, courts should consider disclosure subject to tailored protective conditions (for example, limiting use to the litigation, restricting access to counsel and experts, and sealing sensitive filings) rather than denying access outright.
- Proper procedure generally requires an evidentiary basis for the privilege claim and, where appropriate, in camera or similar review focused on particular documents and feasible restrictions.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal required reconsideration of a discovery dispute involving a late-raised trade secret claim, holding that although a protective order was within the trial court’s power, the court had to apply trade secret procedures, conduct the required balancing, and tailor any protections to preserve fair access to necessary evidence.


Stadish v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 350 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)