Short answer. You can generally refuse, unless non-disclosure would conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. Rule 130, Section 26 protects against compelled testimony about a trade secret, but if disclosure is ordered, the court must take protective measures for the interests of the secret's owner, the parties, and the furtherance of justice.
What the law says
A person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade secret unless the non-disclosure will conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice.
Rule 130, Section 26 — Privilege relating to trade secrets. Read the full provision →
What the law says
When disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measure as the interest of the owner of the trade secret and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require.
Rule 130, Section 26 — Privilege relating to trade secrets. Read the full provision →
The default protection
Section 26 establishes trade secret privilege: a person cannot be compelled to testify about any trade secret. This recognizes that trade secrets have real commercial value precisely because they are kept confidential, and forcing their disclosure in litigation could destroy that value even where the secret has little to do with the case's actual merits, discouraging businesses from ever having to choose between defending a lawsuit and protecting what makes them competitive. The privilege exists to protect the secret's commercial value, not to shield a party from litigation on the actual merits of the underlying dispute.
The exception: concealing fraud or working injustice
The privilege gives way when non-disclosure would conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. If withholding the trade secret would let wrongdoing go undetected or produce an unjust result in the case, the privilege is overridden — protection of the secret cannot be used as a shield for fraud. Courts applying this exception look at whether keeping the trade secret confidential would let a fraud go unaddressed or produce an unfair result in the specific case. The party seeking disclosure carries the burden of showing that this exception genuinely applies before the privilege gives way in a given case.
Protective measures if disclosure is ordered
Even where disclosure is directed under the exception, Section 26 does not simply throw the trade secret open. The court must take protective measures as the interest of the secret's owner, the parties, and the furtherance of justice require — such as limiting who sees the disclosed information or how it may be used. Such measures might include sealing the relevant testimony, limiting who may be present, or restricting how the disclosed information may later be used outside the proceeding. This protective duty binds the court itself once disclosure is directed; it does not fall on the party who benefits from the disclosure to volunteer safeguards, since the court retains responsibility for crafting measures suited to the owner's and the parties' interests.