Technology industry officials are lobbying legislators hard as they consider Senate Bill 11, which could force companies to make proprietary information public in the course of certain legal proceedings. The measure, authored by state Sen. Martha Escutia (D-Montebello), is at the heart of a growing controversy that has brought many corporate heavyweights to Sacramento in recent weeks to lobby against SB 11. Supporters of the bill say it will help keep companies from hiding behind a wall of confidentiality in such product defect cases as that involving Firestone tires. Detractors say the bill, which could compel defendants to make a great deal of information public at the request of a plaintiff in a lawsuit, could allow companies to use the legal process as “fishing expeditions” to gather information about their competitors. Valley firms like Luminent Inc., Interlink Inc., Conexant Systems Inc., and Diodes Inc. have joined with the American Electronics Association in an attempt to defeat the measure. Likewise, Cisco Systems Inc. CEO John Chambers and Sun Microsystems Inc. CEO Scott McNealy have sent emissaries to Sacramento to lobby lawmakers as they ready to debate the bill this week in what could be a make-or-break scenario in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. William R. Spivey, CEO of Chatsworth-based fiber optics maker Luminent, said he fears the measure could force companies like his to make their trade secrets public. “Luminent imposes strict standards to ensure the confidentiality of its trade secrets and proprietary information (But) all these safeguards would be rendered null and void if one of our competitors gained access to our confidential information,” he said. “For instance, our organizational chart in the hands of a competitor would allow them to raid any one of our key departments, possibly rendering us incapable of moving forward with our business.” The bill requires companies to make a great deal of their information public at the request of a plaintiff in a lawsuit. Such information could include typically confidential information like marketing strategies and even details of pending patents. Under SB 11, any legal claim charging injury, wrongful death or financial loss supposedly due to a defective product or service would void a confidentiality agreement. It would also require a company to show cause why a judge should allow a so-called “protective order” to bar business information from becoming public. And, for instance, if a former employee files a lawsuit charging his one-time employee with job discrimination, that employee would be allowed to divulge manufacturing secrets pertaining to his claim, even if he or she had signed a confidentiality agreement not to discuss those matters. But it would also make public any company information relating to out-of-court settlements, despite previously arranged secrecy agreements. “My concerns are that any company can bring about a lawsuit against my company and, because of the vagueness of the measure, my company would be at grave risk to show its proprietary information,” said E. Michael Thoben III, CEO of Camarillo-based computer mouse-maker Interlink. Escutia says the measure does not endanger a company’s intellectual property, but instead helps protect the public in safety issues. Across-the-board disclosure would help the public determine the potential public health risks of products or services. But Teresa Casazza, vice president of state public policy for the American Electronics Association, said a mere ac cusation of wrongdoing could trigger access to intellectual property and other sensitive company information. “The bill was originally meant to protect the public from the Firestone-like disasters, but it’s gone way beyond that,” she said. Thoben, also chairman of the Los Angeles-Santa Barbara Council of AEA, said the legislation is a “knee-jerk” reaction to the Firestone tire recall and subsequent lawsuits involving defective tires that caused more than 100 fatal accidents in the U.S. last year. Thoben said the fact that plaintiffs in those suits have had trouble getting Firestone to provide information on its tires sparked the current measure. Casazza said the bill, though perhaps noble in intention, creates a standard of “guilty until proven innocent” for the high-tech firms she represents that are involved in litigation. “There is no requirement to show that a person or company has caused any harm or even that harm is likely to occur,” she said. “It gives the judge discretion that they didn’t have before.” Industry efforts to reduce the chance of publicizing trade secrets were rejected by Escutia and her colleagues. The bill is now headed to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing tentatively scheduled for Aug. 9. Gene Wong, chief counsel for the committee, said the bill faces pressure from both sides of the issue and that its passage is far from certain. “There is a lot of pressure from the consumer side to pass a law,” he said. “We should be looking at it neutrally. Certainly, the industry has some basis for concern that some of their information would not be protected, but a lot of that is gone from the bill,” Wong said. He added that while legislators rejected some changes requested by industry, they agreed to make it easier for companies to request a protective order to keep information from becoming public. Wong admitted that certain information like strategic plans may not be considered privileged and not be protected. “We’re interested in the product defect and nothing else. It has to be information about a product defect, and not every business plan is going to be under disclosure,” Wong said. But Mark Albertson, senior vice president of the American Electronics Association, said no information is certain to remain confidential under the measure. “Any industry concerned about protecting its intellectual properties should be really concerned about this legislature,” he said. Phil Lichtenberger, executive vice president of telecommunications equipment maker, Holl Technologies Inc. in Camarillo, said he fears the legislation could have a damaging effect on his company. “This business is built on intellectual property. You can’t live without it,” said Lichtenberger. While business interests have lined up against the measure, supporters have recruited some heavyweights to push the bill, including state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the Sierra Club, the California Newspaper Publishers Association and the Consumer Attorneys Association of California. Tod Bedrosian, a senior legislative representative with Sierra Club, said SB 11 is in the best interest of the public and the environment. “The bill sends a clear message to corporations that they cannot buy a legal cloak of silence when it comes to public safety,” he said. Elisa Odabashian, a Sacramento-based senior policy analyst with Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, said SB 11 is being unfairly maligned by industry. “Lives could be saved and much suffering could be averted if corporations were not allowed to use secrecy orders in court settlements to hide information about product defects,” she said. Odabashian said the legislation would serve as a deterrent to companies who aim to hide damaging information about faulty or hazardous products or services.