Is The “Good Cause” Standard Inadequate to Protect Your Company’s Trade Secrets in Discovery Disputes?

by King & Spalding

As owners of trade secrets know, once a trade secret is disclosed, especially to a competitor, the value of this property right is destroyed and the competitive advantage it affords the owner is lost.  Lawyers who sue energy companies often put those companies’ trade secrets at risk, even when the trade secret is not the subject of dispute, as leverage for a large early settlement.  These lawyers do so by arguing that the secret motivated or caused the company to take the action on which the suit is based, thereby placing the trade secret at risk by making it “relevant” to the dispute.  Energy company lawyers should know that standards (such as “good cause”) that are typically used to assess run-of-the-mill discovery disputes may not be adequate protection when trade secrets are at issue.  Lawyers seeking to protect those secrets should remind the courts that, unlike ordering the disclosure of most discovery products, ordering the disclosure of trade secrets is akin to transferring property from one party to another.  Therefore, in trade secret discovery disputes, energy lawyers should urge the courts to balance the constitutional rights of the parties to protect the trade secret owners’ fifth amendment right (to be free from governmental taking of property), rather than simply assessing whether “good cause” exists for disclosing trade secrets.[2]

Despite the fact that compelled disclosure of trade secrets implicates the fifth amendment, some courts and legislatures still presume that trade secrets must be disclosed, even to non-parties (such as in product defect litigation).  This mind-set makes it more difficult for trade secret owners to protect their trade secrets in other types of litigation.[3]  This presumption is based on arguments that the discovery process is open to the public and that ready disclosure of trade secrets helps lawyers and potential litigants learn about alleged product defects in a cost effective way.[4]

The presumption of disclosure falters when applied to the “leverage” situation described above because it ignores the United States Supreme Court’s ruling that: 1) trade secrets constitute property for fifth amendment purposes; and, 2) there is no absolute first amendment right of public access to pretrial discovery materials.  Moreover, courts should not cavalierly order the disclosure of trade secrets because those secrets are particularly vulnerable during litigation.[5]  As a result, the failure to adequately protect trade secrets may be more than an abuse of discretion---it may result in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.[6]

In Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the first amendment mandates complete access by all people to discovery materials, noting that discovery is a statutory right, not a constitutional one, and that, because courts enable litigants to gather information in the first place, they can also restrict the use of that information.  Importantly, the Seattle Times Court rejected the idea that discovery is a presumptively public process, relying on the facts that: 1) trials are traditionally public, but discovery proceedings, are “conducted in private;” and, 2) much of the information uncovered during pretrial discovery is unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.[7]

The Court also recognized that protective orders are important tools in protecting parties’ privacy rights from the breadth of most pretrial discovery procedures, which allow parties to obtain information that, if publicly released, could be damaging to both reputation and privacy.  The Court therefore concluded that the government has a “substantial interest” in preventing “abuse” of discovery processes, a concern that is especially significant when trade secret property rights are involved.[8]

Additionally, in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., the Court held that trade secrets constitute property for purposes of the fifth amendment's takings clause, which, of course, prohibits state actors from taking private property for public use without just compensation.  The Supreme Court has also recognized that the takings clause applies to the courts as well as to other branches of government since government exercises coercive power when courts enforce discovery requests.[9]  As a result, a court’s decision to allow access to private property can constitute a taking even though private actors subsequently control the property.[10]

In analyzing whether there has been an unconstitutional taking under the fifth amendment, a court must decide whether “property” was “taken” and whether the taking served a private purpose (which is entirely prohibited) or whether the taking served a public purpose (which requires just compensation to the owner).[11]

The first part of the analysis is easily met in trade secret cases because, as noted above, the Supreme Court held in Monsanto that trade secrets are property for purposes of the fifth amendment.[12]

As to the second part of the analysis, whether property has been “taken,” courts must determine whether the owner's deprivation rises to the level of a taking.  In Monsanto, the Court recognized that compelled involuntary disclosure of trade secrets to third parties constitutes a taking because it deprives the owner of all or most of his property interest.[13]

Under that analysis, a court’s order requiring a litigant to disclose its trade secrets to a competitor should also constitute a taking since it eliminates the owner’s competitive advantage and abrogates the law's protection of the trade secret from unauthorized use.[14]   This result is also logically compelled in cases where: 1) courts’ orders give people access to trade secrets discovered in prior cases to which they were not parties; and, 2) a party seeks its opponent’s trade secrets as a strategy to force, or increase the value of, a settlement.  In both of these instances, the alleged need for the information is unlikely to outweigh the owner’s legitimate property interest in keeping the information secret and preserving the integrity of its property right.

While it is conceivable that a court may be able to craft an individualized protective order to preserve a significant portion of the owner's rights (and thereby prevent disclosure of the secret from rising to the level of a taking), if the order requires continuous monitoring to ensure compliance, it might still constitute a taking because monitoring usually falls outside a court’s ability.

On the other hand, it is possible that orders which give access to trade secret information to “attorneys and experts only” may effectively protect owners’ constitutional rights, especially where the litigation involves direct competitors.  These types of orders allow only the seeking parties’ lawyers/experts limited and controlled access to trade secrets, but prevent the general revelation of the secrets to the seeking party, since broad disclosure would destroy the secret owner’s competitive advantage.  This type of “attorneys and experts only”  protective order was specifically authorized by the recent Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act.[15]

In Marks, the Texas Supreme Court approved of a process similar to the “attorneys and experts only” process described above despite a due process objection to it.[16]  Using the United States Supreme Court’s familiar three part “Matthews test,”[17]  the Texas Supreme Court held that a civil litigant’s due process rights were not violated when a district court heard a government attorney’s oral statements about a related, secret, federal grand jury investigation in camera and ex parte.[18]

Application of Marks to most trade secret discovery cases will not violate the seeking parties’ due process rights because seeking parties will still be able to cross examine witnesses and to participate in hearings where trade secret evidence is presented through their lawyers and experts. This “attorneys and experts only” form of participation may be the only method that will adequately protect trade secrets and still allow the court to hear the full panoply of evidence.  Such a hearing can be recorded and sealed for in camera appeal, as it was in Marks, so there is no concern over the ability to obtain review of the order.

Based on the foregoing, a court may be able to preserve a trade secret owner’s fifth amendment right through a carefully-crafted protective order, but it will require considerable judicial resources and attention.  However, where an order is ineffective to protect the owner’s property rights, there is a taking for purposes of the fifth amendment.

Where a taking occurs, the final two steps of the analysis also become relevant.  As mentioned, the taking of a trade secret for a private purpose is unconstitutional; by contrast, where the taking serves a public purpose, it may pass constitutional scrutiny if the owner is justly compensated.[19]  The complication in discovery “takings” situations is the fact that courts do not have designated funds to compensate parties for takings, so most courts and legal writers believe that judicial takings must be invalidated because there is no mechanism for providing just compensation to the owners for the taking of their property.[20]   Therefore, once a court determines that an order compelling pretrial disclosure of trade secrets would constitute a taking of property for a public purpose, the court should refrain from requiring the disclosure if it cannot provide the owner with just compensation for the taking.


At present, Texas cases focus only on the first amendment aspect of the trade secret discovery issue and do not fully recognize that the forced public disclosure of trade secrets has the potential to effectuate a taking in violation of the fifth amendment.  In part, this is because Texas Rule of Procedure 76a contains a presumption of openness and simply does not address situations in which disclosure would constitute a taking.[21]

The extensive incursion into private matters that is permitted by pretrial discovery rules should not be allowed to destroy valuable trade secret property rights.[22]  As one commentator has wryly observed, “ a foreigner watching the discovery proceedings in a[n] [American] civil suit would never suspect that this country has a highly-prized tradition of privacy enshrined in the fourth amendment.”[23] 

While protective orders can raise prior restraint concerns and warrant scrutiny of their impact on first amendment expression, that first amendment concern is not the only constitutional inquiry that must be made in trade secret discovery disputes.   Both the Supreme Court’s ruling that trade secrets constitute property and its refusal to recognize an unfettered first amendment right to access discovery materials show a willingness to engage in a balancing of constitutional rights in trade secret cases.[24]  Thus, after Seattle Times and Monsanto, courts should engage in a balancing analysis as well as a good cause analysis when trade secrets are sought in discovery to ensure that an unconstitutional taking of trade secrets does not occur.

[1] Ms. Stephens is a partner and appellate specialist at King & Spalding LLP.  She has represented energy companies in high-stakes appeals for almost 30 years.  She is certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Civil Appellate Law and is one of the first four people to be nationally certified in appellate law by the AIAP and was the first woman and the first Texan to receive national certification.  

[2] See Judanna Cooper, Beyond Judicial Discretion: Toward a Rights-Based Theory of Civil Discovery and Protective Orders, 36 RULJ 775 (2005); James R. McKown, Taking Property: Constitutional Ramifications of Litigation Involving Trade Secrets, 13 Rev. Litig. 253, 254 (1994); Note, Trade Secrets in Discovery: From First Amendment Disclosure to Fifth Amendment Protection, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1330, 1331 (1991);

[3] Ruckleshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1011 (1984); Oryon Technologies, Inc. v. Marcus, 429 S.W.2d 762, 764 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); see Note, Constitutional Limitations on Government Disclosure of Private Trade Secret Information, 56 IND. L.J. 347, 347, 367-68 (1981); see generally Coffee, Understanding the Plaintiff's Attorney: The Implications of Economic Theory for Private Enforcement of Law Through Class and Derivative Actions, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 669 (1986).

[4] See Trade Secrets in Discovery, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1331.

[5] Oryon, 429 S.W.3d at 764; Timothy Durst & Cheryl Mann, Behind Closed Doors: Closing the Courtroom in Trade Secrets Cases, 8 Intel. Prop. L.J. 355, 356 (2000).   

[6] U.S. CONST. amend. V (“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation . . . .)”. The fifth amendment applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Chicago B. & O.R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 239 (1897);  Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 (1984); Monsanto, 467 U.S. at 1003-04 ; cf. Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 26 (1987) (finding a “property” interest in a newspaper's confidential information); accord, Leonard v. State, 767 S.W.2d 171, 175 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988), aff’d sum nom., Schalk v. State, 823 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Trade Secrets in Discovery, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1337-1344;  see generally Samuelson, Information as Property: Do Ruckelshaus and Carpenter Signal a Changing Direction in Intellectual Property Law?, 38 CATH. U.L. REV. 365 (1989).

[7] See Seattle Times, 467 U.S. at 22-37.

[8] Id.

[9] U.S. CONST. amend. V; Seattle Times, 467 U.S. 986, 1003-04 (1984); see, e.g., Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 18-23 (1948); Thompson, Judicial Takings, 76 VA. L. REV. 1449, 1457 (1990).

[10] See Gelfand, “Taking” Informational Property Through Discovery, 66 WASH. U.L.Q. 703, 705 n.9 (1988); United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945).

[11] See Monsanto, 467 U.S. at 1000-01.

[12] 467 U.S. at 1001-04 .

[13] See Monsanto, 467 U.S. at 1011-12 & n. 15.

[14] See 104 Harv. L. Rev. at 1342; Note, Constitutional Limitations on Government Disclosure of Private Trade Secret Information, 56 IND. L. J. 347, 367-68 (1981.

[15] TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 134A.001 et seq.   

[16] United States Government v. Marks, 949 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. 1997).  

[17] Under the Matthews test, the United States Supreme Court recognized that procedural due process must be balanced against other rights, such as a trade secret owner’s fifth amendment and property rights.   The court must consider three factors:  the private interests that will be affected by the official action; the risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and the government’s interest.  Marks, 949 S.W.2d at 326; Matthews v. Eldridge,  424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976).

[18] Marks, 949 S.W.2d at 326; Matthews, 424 U.S. at  334-35; see Air Products & Chem., Inc., v. Johnson, 442 A.2d 114, 116-17 (Pa. Super. 1982).

19 See 104 Harv. L. Rev. at 1343.

[20] See 104 Harv. L. J. at 1343; Thompson, 76 Va. L. Rev. at 1454.

[21] See TEX. R. CIV. P. ANN. r. 76a, 166b(5)(c) (Vernon Supp. 1990). Herring, Sealing Court Records: Unanswered Questions and Unsolved Problems, TEX. LAW., May 21, 1990, at 24.

[22] See 104 Harv. L. Rev. at 1348; Marcus, Myth and Reality in Protective Order Litigation, 69 Cornell L. Rev. 1, 23, 54-55

[23] Rifkind, Are We Asking Too Much of Our Courts?, 70 F.R.D. 96, 107 (1976).

[24] See generally 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1330



S. Shawn Stephens
+713 276 7359
View Profile »


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© King & Spalding | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

King & Spalding

King & Spalding on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at:

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.