The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The opinion is Spolar v. Discovery Communications, LLC, handed down today by Judge Stephen V. Wilson:
Discovery describes the documentary, entitled The Lost Lincoln, as "follow[ing] professional authenticator Dr. Whitny Braun as she leads an investigation to determine whether or not a newly discovered photograph could be the 131st and final image of the president following his fatal shooting in 1865."
Plaintiffs own the photograph, and claim that Dr. Braun's work violated his nondisclosure agreement with them. The court notes, though, that Discovery has no contract with the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs' research into the photograph isn't the sort of trade secret whose disclosure can be enjoined in this kind of situation.
The court's decision doesn't rest primarily on First Amendment doctrine:
Whether and how the prior restraint doctrine applies to protectible trade secrets—especially those covering matters of public concern—remains murky. In CBS, Inc. v. Davis, Justice Blackmun granted a television network's application to stay an injunction prohibiting a broadcast that would allegedly disclose a meat packing company's trade secrets. 510 U.S. at 1318; see also Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, 67 F. Supp. 2d 745, 753 (E.D. Mich. 1999). However, it is well recognized that the prior restraint doctrine is routinely relaxed in the field of intellectual property. See Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 15:60 ("[C]ourts have often exhibited a blind spot for normal prior restraint and preliminary injunction standards when it comes to enforcement of copyright interests."); see, e.g., A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1028 (9th Cir. 2001); Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1403 n.11 (9th Cir. 1997).
But the court recognizes that its analysis of the factors used to decide whether to grant an injunction should be "informed by an extra layer of First Amendment scrutiny," and concludes that ultimately the plaintiffs' trade secret claim appears too weak to warrant a temporary restraining order.