for injunctive relief against anyone, the issue of prior restraint was not before the Court, and cited as helpful the California Supreme Court's analysis in DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc. v. Bunner, which observed "[T]he First Amendment does not prohibit courts from incidentally enjoining speech in order to protect a legitimate property right." Appellate history On June 2, 2005 the California Court of Appeals for the 6th District issued an Order to Show Cause, directing Apple to show the Court "why a peremptory writ should not issue as requested in the petition" filed by the online journalists, and held a hearing with oral argument on April 20, 2006. Decision On May 26, 2006, the Court of Appeal issued its ruling in favor of the online journalists, holding that the trial court's denial of the defendants' motion for a protective order was in error because (1) the subpoena to the email service provider could not be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712); (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from defendants (appellate petitioners) would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter's shield (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd (b); Evid. Code, § 1070); and (3) discovery of the defendants' sources was also barred on the specific facts of the case by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources in keeping with prior precedent in Mitchell. The court took the time to chastise Apple's secret-protection tactics by remarking: ... the discovery process is intended as a device to facilitate adjudication, not as an end in itself. To accept Apple's position on the present point would empower betrayed employers to clothe themselves with the subpoena power merely by suing fictitious defendants, and then to use that power solely to identify treacherous employees for purposes of discipline, all without any intent of pursuing the underlying case to judgment. An employer pursuing such an objective might prefer not to join any defendants lest it expose itself to negative consequences up to and including a countersuit for malicious prosecution or abuse of process. Our sympathy for employers in such a position cannot blind us to the gross impropriety of using the courts and their powers of compulsory process as a tool and adjunct of an employer's personnel department. Amici curiae When the online news sites filed their appeal of