The posted information was a trade secret, said the Court, and Apple was entitled to find out the source of that information.
The computer giant filed suit in December against unnamed individuals who allegedly leaked information about an upcoming Apple product code-named "Asteroid" to several internet news sites.
Apple subpoenaed Nfox, the ISP for PowerPage.com publisher Jason O'Grady, demanding that the ISP turn over the communications and unpublished materials O'Grady obtained while he was gathering information for his articles about Asteroid.
Apple was also granted permission to subpoena news sites PowerPage and AppleInsider for similar information. According to civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), these subpoenas have not yet been issued.
The EFF, along with two local law firms, is acting for the three journalists involved in the case, and had asked the California Superior Court for a protective order, arguing that on-line journalists are protected by the same reporter's privilege laws that shield print journalists from having to reveal the names of anonymous sources.
On Friday, ruling on the order, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg denied the request.
Judge Kleinberg said that Apple had made out a case that the information in question related to proprietary trade secrets and had made adequate internal inquires to justify the subpoenas.
Neatly avoiding the issue of whether on-line journalists and bloggers had the same rights and protections as mainstream journalists, Judge Kleinberg focused on the stolen nature of the information.
"The public has had, and continues to have, a profound interest in gossip about Apple," he wrote. "Therefore, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of 'hits' on a web site about Apple have and will happen. But an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, the movants are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information," he added.
Judge Kleinberg stressed that his ruling relates only to the protective order, and not to the merits of Apple's case, or any defenses to it.
"We're disappointed that the trial court ignored the Supreme Court's requirement that seeking a journalist's confidential sources be a 'last resort' in civil discovery," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Instead, the court asserts a wholesale exception to the journalist's privilege when the information is alleged to be a trade secret."
"This is a broad-brush ruling that threatens journalists of all stripes," added EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn.
The EFF confirmed that an appeal will be filed.
