# DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc. v. Bunner

> California Supreme Court · October 15, 2003 · 4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788693

## Case

- **Full name:** DVD COPY CONTROL ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDREW BUNNER, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 15, 2003
- **Citations:** 4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69; 31 Cal. 4th 864; 75 P.3d 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Werdegar
- **Judges:** Brown, Werdegar, Moreno
- **Cited by:** 82 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788693

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that disclosure of highly technical information, classified as trade secrets, does not relate to a matter of public concern because it adds nothing to any public debate regarding the efforts of the DVD industry to limit the unauthorized copying of DVDs
- noting, where information posted on Internet, “a plaintiff carries the burden of showing that the trade secret remains a trade secret despite the Internet posting”

## Opinion text

WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.
I write separately because I agree partly with the majority and partly with Justice Moreno. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not necessarily preclude injunctive relief in trade secret cases. I find in Justice Moreno’s concurring opinion, however, a more satisfying reconciliation of that conclusion with the constitutional rules governing prior restraints and content-based restrictions of speech.
*891 The court agrees that a reviewing court in First Amendment cases must examine the entire record independently to ensure that the factual predicates for injunctive relief truly exist. Justice Moreno would have us conduct that examination ourselves. Certainly we have the power to do so. In my view, however, considerations of judicial economy justify the majority’s decision to leave this factually intensive task to the Court of Appeal. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 12, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 29(b)(3).)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788693. Public record. Not legal advice.