sought information concerning who leaked information on Asteroid. In contrast, Apple's suit against Think Secret accused the dePlume organization of harming Apple's trade secret property interests by publishing stories about a "headless iMac" (the Mac Mini), and about an updated version of iWork. Apple's separate lawsuit against Think Secret, Apple Computer v. Deplume, sought damages directly from dePlume and Think Secret for alleged dissemination of trade secrets through published stories on the Mac mini and iWork, and alleged such publication to be in violation of California law, although Think Secret did no original reporting on Asteroid. On March 4, 2005, the dePlume Organization filed a responsive motion in the same court as the Does case, demanding dismissal of Apple's suit under the California Anti-SLAPP Statute. Lower court history On March 11, 2005, the Santa Clara County Superior Court trial judge declined to grant the defendants a protective order prohibiting discovery of their email. The court based its decision on its determination that (1) Apple's property as received by defendants was stolen, (2) that defendants did not convince the court they were journalists who could make legitimate use of the shield privilege, and (3) even if defendants were journalists, Apple's property rights took precedence over journalists' rights to protect their sources. Specifically, the court reasoned that since the leaked information in the posting made by O'Grady contained an exact copy of a detailed drawing of "Asteroid" created by Apple, and included technical specifications that were copied verbatim from the same source, and all of that information was taken from a confidential set of slides labeled 'Apple Need-to-Know Confidential", that the information was "stolen property, just as any physical item." The court discussed the notion that websites posting such stolen information were analogous to criminal fences. The court determined the claim of "privilege" was thus overstated because reporters and their sources do not have a license to violate criminal laws. The court wrote that defendants claimed they were journalists because they sought the protection of the privilege against revealing their sources of information, rather than finding they sought the protection of privilege because they were journalists. The court noted that Apple's legal argument passed the five-part test articulated in the California case Mitchell v. Superior Court which weighed whether a subpoena should be permitted over journalists' privilege rights under the First Amendment. The court reasoned that because there was no pending motion