Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Court Denies TRO in “The Lost Lincoln” Misappropriation Case

By William Pellett & Molly A. Jones on October 16, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On October 2, 2020, a federal judge for the Central District of California denied a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin the Discovery Channel from airing “The Lost Lincoln,” a documentary about an allegedly long-lost photograph of Abraham Lincoln on his deathbed.  Only 130 photographs of Lincoln are known to exist.

Plaintiffs Jerry Spolar and Terry Williamson own the photograph, known as an ambrotype, and spent years researching and authenticating it.  In 2018, they partnered with Whitny and James Braun to make a documentary about the photo and shared the details of their authentication efforts with the Brauns pursuant to non-disclosure agreements.  The project fell through at first, but late last month, Plaintiffs learned that their former partners had created a documentary about the photograph for the Discovery Channel.

Plaintiffs brought suit asserting trade secret misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), breach of contract, and breach of California’s Unfair Competition Law, arguing that the documentary would disclose their confidential and trade secret research and authentication methods.  Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed the following as their trade secrets:

“the compilation of a confidential list of dozens of medical, forensic, and authentication experts; detailed reports, analyses, and conclusions; scientific analytical drawings; annotated images and overlays of the Lincoln Ambrotype and features thereon; experimental procedures and results; related expert and consultant write-ups; handwritten notes, annotated figures and images, and detailed notes of Plaintiffs’ interactions with their team of collaborators; and various duplication methods used to create images of the Lincoln Ambrotype to enable more detailed photogrammetric analyses.”

To be sure, the DTSA broadly defines what can be a trade secret.  Any type of “financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes” can qualify as trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and if the owner takes reasonable steps to maintain the information’s secrecy.

But Plaintiffs, it turns out, went too far in broadly claiming these catch-all trade secrets.  The court held that these descriptions did not identify their claimed trade secrets with “sufficient particularity” and that, as a practical matter, the court would be unable to separate the claimed trade secrets from public information.  Moreover, the court explained that these deficiencies raised even greater concerns because the Plaintiffs’ request to restrain the Discovery Channel from broadcasting the documentary implicated the First Amendment’s “prior restraint” doctrine, which favors an eventual merits resolution over prospectively enjoining speech.

This case is an unusual but familiar reminder that trade secret plaintiffs must carefully describe their trade secrets so that the court can readily differentiate trade secret information from publicly available information.

Photo of William Pellett William Pellett
Read more about William PellettEmail
Photo of Molly A. Jones Molly A. Jones

Molly A. Jones is an Intellectual Property and Litigation counsel in Crowell & Moring’s San Francisco office. Her practice emphasizes patent, trademark, technology licensing, and other commercial disputes in a range of industries including software, biotechnology, commercial real estate, education, health care, and…

Molly A. Jones is an Intellectual Property and Litigation counsel in Crowell & Moring’s San Francisco office. Her practice emphasizes patent, trademark, technology licensing, and other commercial disputes in a range of industries including software, biotechnology, commercial real estate, education, health care, and food and beverage. She has represented clients in matters in the Northern, Eastern, and Southern Districts of California, Eastern District of Texas, and California state courts. Molly has also second-chaired a trademark infringement trial in the Western District of Texas.

Molly earned her J.D., cum laude, from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, where she was the executive symposium editor of the Hastings Law Journal and co-authored amicus curiae briefs in two landmark patent cases at the U.S. Supreme Court. While attending law school, Molly also externed at the Northern District of California and studied abroad at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul, South Korea.

Read more about Molly A. JonesEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property, Privacy & Data Security
  • Blog:
    Trade Secrets Trends
  • Organization:
    Crowell & Moring LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • The FTI Award Journal
  • International Dispute Resolution
  • China Law Update Blog
  • Law of The Ledger
  • Antitrust Law Blog
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo