## Facts

- Sports Management News, Inc. (SMNI) published a newsletter covering the sporting-goods industry.
- A sporting-goods company (Adidas America) sued, alleging that SMNI had misappropriated trade secrets under Oregon’s trade-secrets statute.
- In the trade-secrets litigation, the circuit court entered an order that barred SMNI from publishing information about the company’s technology developments that the court treated as trade secrets.
- The court’s order went beyond restricting use of discovery in the lawsuit and required SMNI to obtain court approval before publishing any information characterized as a trade secret.
- SMNI petitioned the Oregon Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Jack Nachtigal to vacate the publication-restraining order.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may, consistent with Oregon law and the Oregon Constitution’s free-expression protections, order a publisher to obtain court approval before publishing information alleged to be a trade secret.
2. Whether mandamus is an appropriate vehicle to challenge a trial court order that operates as a prior restraint on publication.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals granted mandamus.
- The court directed the trial court to vacate the order to the extent it restrained publication through a court-approval requirement (a prepublication restraint).
- The court reasoned that an order requiring judicial approval before publication functions as a prior restraint and is not justified merely by labeling the subject matter as “trade secrets” in a civil dispute.
- The court indicated that trial courts may use ordinary procedural tools (including orders governing the handling of discovery materials) but may not impose a broad prepublication review regime on a publisher in the manner ordered here.

## Legal Principles

- A court order that conditions future speech on prior judicial approval is a prior restraint.
- Prior restraints on publication are strongly disfavored under Oregon’s constitutional guarantee of free expression (Or. Const. art. I, § 8) and require a legally valid basis that fits within recognized limits on governmental power over speech.
- Trade-secret claims and confidentiality interests can justify tailored restrictions on the use and disclosure of information within litigation (for example, in discovery), but those interests do not automatically authorize a court to impose prepublication review or a sweeping ban on publication by a news publisher.
- Mandamus is available to correct certain trial-court actions that exceed lawful authority and impose restraints not adequately remediable through ordinary appeal, including orders that restrain publication.

## Conclusion

In *State ex. rel. Sports Management News, Inc. v. Nachtigal*, the Oregon Court of Appeals granted SMNI’s mandamus petition and ordered the trial court to vacate a prepublication-approval requirement that restrained SMNI from publishing information deemed to be trade secrets, holding that such a court-approval regime operates as an unlawful prior restraint rather than a permissible litigation-management measure.


State ex. rel. Sports Management News, Inc. v. Nachtigal, 921 P.2d 1304 (1996)