Out of curiousity, why is a leak(s) in the grand jury testimony Bonds' issue? If this is criminal, why isn't the DA going after the leakers? I plead ignorance here...how is this offense open to a civil suit by Bonds?
There is a series of statutes in California that entitles a private citizen to pursue a civil claim against someone who profits from activity that is in violation of law -- it is referred to as the Unfair Competition Act. Bonds is seeking to force the authors of the book to give up their profits from the book ("disgorgement of ill-gotten gains") attributable to their knowing use of grand jury transcripts that they have no right to have.
The prosecution authority (I believe it was federal) may be investigating the leak; heck, the prosecution may have BEEN the source of the leak (though I don't know that to be true). On the other hand, once the SF Chronicle printed relevant portions of the transcript, going after a major media outlet for a criminal violation would have involved a major first amendment battle over whether a major media outlet has the right to print what otherwise would be "news" if based on leaked grand jury testimony. First amendment battles are long, expensive and difficult to win.
The beauty of Bonds' claim is that he only needs to show that they profited from printing information that they legally were not entitled to have (a much lesser standard which should not involve the first amendment).