Supreme Court of California

California Code of Regulations section 2646.6(c), permitting public inspection of statements that insurers are required to file, is valid; the public disclosure provision of Insurance Code section 1861.07 does not incorporate the exemption from disclosure found in Government Code section 6254(k), and thus does not exempt from disclosure information protected by the trade secret privilege.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/26/2004
• Published 04/26/2004

Judges

• BROWN, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
•  Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Paul Alexander, Vanessa Wells and Victoria Collman Brown, Menlo Park, for Plaintiffs and Appellants., LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Thomas E. McDonald and Sanford Kingsley, San Francisco, for Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Deerbrook Insurance Company, United Services Automobile Association and USAA Casualty Insurance Company as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants., Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Roger M. Milgrim, George L. Graff, New York, NY, Romy Berk, Thomas J. Finn, Brian Moran, New York, NY, Paul W. Cane, Jr., San Francisco;  National Chamber Litigation Center and Robin S. Conrad, Washington, DC, for California Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the California Business Roundtable, California Healthcare Institute and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants., Horvitz & Levy, David S. Ettinger, Mitchell C. Tilner, Daniel J. Gonzalez, Encino;  Barger & Wolen, Steven H. Weinstein and Robyn E. King for Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, The Association of California Insurance Companies, The Personal Insurance Federation of California and The National Association of Independent Insurers as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants., Fred J. Hiestand, Sacramento, for the Civil Justice Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Randall P. Borcherding and Kristian D. Whitten, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents., Public Advocates, Mark Savage, San Francisco, and Thorn Ndaizee Meweh for Interveners and Respondents Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles, Inc., and Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., Gail Hillebrand, San Francisco, for Intervener and Respondent Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., Kevin Stein, New York, NY, for California Reinvestment Committee as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Interveners and Respondents., John A. Russo, City Attorney (Oakland), Barbara J. Parker, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Daniel Rossi, Deputy City Attorney for City of Oakland as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Interveners and Respondents.,  Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney (San Francisco), Owen J. Clements, Chief of Special Litigation, and Ellen M. Forman, Deputy City Attorney, for City and County of San Francisco as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Interveners and Respondents., Harvey Rosenfield and Pamela Pressley for The Proposition 103 Enforcement Project as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Interveners and Respondents.