business attorneys in California

Appellant, respondent's former employer, sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), for respondent in a case in which appellant alleged wrongful interference with business relationships, unfair competition and breach of a confidential employment agreement based on respondent's alleged unfair solicitation of business from a company with whom appellant had been negotiating. The business attorneys in California is very important for business litigations.

Appellant, respondent's former employer, sought review of a judgment of a trial court for respondent in a case in which appellant alleged wrongful interference with business relationships, unfair competition, and breach of a confidential employment agreement arising out of respondent's bid on a contract with a third-party company with whom appellant had been in negotiations, following respondent's resignation from appellant's employ and sale of a device to this company, which appellant contended was its sole property. Respondent had executed an employment agreement whereby respondent had agreed not to disclose any of appellant's trade secrets and whereby respondent agreed that any inventions made during his employment with appellant would become appellant's sole property. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment. Respondent did not make unfair use of any confidential information in competing with appellant. Also, appellant did not have trade secrets entitled to protection in the device sold to third-party company. Finally, the court found that the employment agreement was otherwise unenforceable.

The judgment was affirmed; respondent did not make unfair use of any trade secrets in competing with appellant. The evidence supported a finding that the device sold to a third-party company was invented by respondent and appellant had no protectable interest in this device. The confidential employment agreement was enforceable only to the extent of the non-disclosure of trade secrets.

 Petitioner corporation applied for a writ of mandate, challenging the discovery order of respondent, the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which permitted the real parties in interest, plaintiffs in a products liability case, to have access to petitioner's complete customer list with authority to contact them giving notice of injury suffered by real parties and making inquiries concerning customer's experience with the product.

Real parties in interest, plaintiffs in a products liability case, sought discovery of petitioner corporation's complete customer list and permission from respondent trial court to mail said customers a questionnaire informing them of the injury and inquiring as to their experience with the product. The trial court granted these requests and petitioner applied for a writ of mandate. The court issued the preemptory writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting access to petitioner's customer list and authorizing the mailing. The court held that petitioner's confidential customer list was entitled to protection due to the potential damage to petitioner. The court noted that petitioner had provided real parties in interest with all known incidences of similar accidents and had presented only one instance of an accident involving the product which had not been reported by petitioner.

The court issued a writ of mandate ordering respondent trial court to vacate its order permitting real parties in interest, plaintiff's in a products liability case, access to petitioner corporation's confidential customer list and authorizing a mailing to said customers. The court held that the discovery request was overbroad and potentially damaging to petitioner.