Legal Opinion

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 24, 1992No. A053717PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NEWSOM, Acting P. J.

Summary

Petitioner Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Firestone), seeks extraordinary relief to compel respondent Alameda County Superior Court to set aside its order requiring Firestone to provide certain trade secret (Evid. Code, § 1060) information to real parties in the underlying personal injury action. The disclosure is subject to a protective order. (Civ. Code, § 3426.5.)

Firestone insists that on the record below respondent was required to deny the motion in its entirety or alternatively to first require real parties to pursue less intrusive alternatives to…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
  4. People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. In Re Continental General Tire, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1998
  2. John Paul Mitchell Systems v. Randalls Food Markets, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2000
  3. Crum v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. v. MayberryIndiana Supreme Court · 2007

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API