Laffitte v. Bridgestone Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 district · 18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 397 F. Supp. 1146 - Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc. · Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co. · Baggerly v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · 7 Cal. App. 4th 1384 - Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court · In Re Continental General Tire, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the allegations in the initial pleading setting forth the factual predicate for or against liability have been plead with particularity; (2) the information sought is directly relevant to the allegations plead with particularity in the initial pleading; (3) the information is such that the proponent of the discovery will be substantially prejudiced if not permitted access to the information; and (4) a good faith basis exists for the belief that testimony based on or evidence deriving from the trade secret information will be admissible at trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“requirement of the Trade Secrets Act. Consequently, when determining whether trade secret information is subject to disclosure, the substantial need requirement is an integral part of the South Carolina balancing test. Thus, if a substantial need is shown and the balancing test weighs in favor of the one requesting disclosure, the qualified privilege is overcome. Then, the trade secret holder will be compelled to disclose the trade secret, but the holder is nevertheless afforded protection under”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“39-8-60 does not improperly limit the operation of Rule 26, but rather is consistent with Rule 26 in that both provide for reasonable restrictions on the discovery of trade secrets. The ... Act therefore does not supplant, but rather complements, Rule 26(c).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.