Dooley

ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley

Good Law
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 980·214 Cal. App. 3d 307·262 Cal. Rptr. 773
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 1989No. H003501California5,724 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Agliano, J.

*311 Opinion

1. Introduction

Does the statutory privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. 2) preclude liability for an otherwise wrongful disclosure of trade secrets? Plaintiff ITT Telecom Products Corporation (ITT) filed the instant suit for damages alleging its former employee, defendant Gerald F. Dooley, had violated contractual and other duties of confidentiality. Dooley moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication based on the privilege, asserting his disclosures were made as a consultant to a party involved in litigation with ITT. The trial court granted Dooley’s motion for summary judgment, and ITT has appealed.

As explained below, we will reverse, holding the privilege does not apply to the voluntary disclosure of trade secrets in violation of a contract of confidentiality.

2. Scope of review

“Since a summary judgment motion raises only questions of law regarding the construction and effect of the supporting and opposing papers, we independently review them on appeal, applying the same three-step analysis required of the trial court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c . . . .)” (AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.