{"id":139,"date":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=139"},"modified":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","slug":"microsoft-v-superior-court-b347381-calecpa-nondisclosure-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=139","title":{"rendered":"Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Court \u2014 Nondisclosure Order Barring Notice to USC Survives CalECPA and First Amendment Challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles, Real Party in Interest)<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal, Division Four<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-14<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B347381<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, CalECPA, Nondisclosure Orders, First Amendment, Search Warrants, Electronic Service Providers<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In May 2025, the LAPD served Microsoft with a search warrant for electronic data associated with the email account of a USC graduate student suspected of rape. The account was part of Microsoft’s enterprise contract with USC. The trial court signed the warrant and a 90-day nondisclosure order (NDO) prohibiting Microsoft from notifying anyone \u2014 including the target and ‘anyone at USC’ \u2014 about the warrant.<\/p>\n

Microsoft conceded the NDO’s validity as to the suspect himself but moved to modify the order so it could notify a ‘trusted point of contact’ at USC. Microsoft argued the prohibition violated the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA, Penal Code section 1546 et seq.) and infringed Microsoft’s First Amendment right to inform its enterprise customer.<\/p>\n

The trial court denied modification, and Microsoft sought writ relief. Amicus briefs were filed by Google, Amazon, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the First Amendment Coalition supporting Microsoft.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal denied the writ petition. As a matter of first impression in California, the court addressed when a trial court may issue an NDO accompanying a CalECPA warrant served on an electronic service provider. The court held that the trial court had made the findings CalECPA requires: a reasonable likelihood that disclosure (including disclosure to USC) would impede the criminal investigation, endanger people, or risk the destruction of evidence.<\/p>\n

On the First Amendment claim, the court applied strict scrutiny because the NDO operated as a prior restraint on Microsoft’s speech. The court nevertheless concluded the NDO survived strict scrutiny: the state’s compelling interest in protecting an active criminal investigation, particularly into a serious violent offense, was sufficient, and the order was narrowly tailored \u2014 it lasted only 90 days, applied only to specifically identified persons, and did not prohibit Microsoft from speaking to law enforcement, courts, or counsel.<\/p>\n

The opinion explicitly addresses, and rejects, Microsoft’s argument that USC as an enterprise customer should be exempt from the NDO so that USC could conduct its own internal investigation. The court found nothing in CalECPA that makes enterprise customers a special class entitled to advance notice when their employees or affiliates are under criminal investigation.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n