DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION On September 26, 2019, the Court entered a Decision and Order dismissing several claims from Plaintiff ValveTech, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint against Defendant Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. (“Defendant”). ECF No. 71. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which United States Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen granted on April 6, 2020. ECF Nos. 95, 105. The SAC contains four claims: one for breach of contract, two for trade secret misappropriation (one under federal law and one under California law), and replevin. ECF No. 48. Defendant now moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s contract and trade secret claims and moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s replevin claim based upon mootness. ECF No. 189 at 11-29. For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 184, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Where disputed, the facts are taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff engineers, designs, develops, and manufactures valves for use in aerospace manufacturing. ECF No. 106 20. Defendant was hired to design and develop a propulsion system for the Boeing/NASA Commercial Crew Program. ECF No. 189 at 5. This system required the use of different kinds of valves, so Defendant, rather than produce all the valves in-house, sought proposals from, and engaged in discussions with, vendors. Id. As a part of those dealings, Defendant entered into non-disclosure agreements (“NDA”) with potential vendors. Id. One such vendor was Plaintiff, from which Defendant specifically sought a proposal related to a propellant isolation valve to be used in in an Orbital Maneuver and Control Program (“OMAC”). Id. On August 31, 2011, the parties entered into an NDA related to that proposal (the “2011 NDA”), which marked the beginning of a multi-year course of dealing, governed by the additional agreements discussed below. ECF No. 201-1 1; ECF No. 106-4. In March 2013, “Plaintiff was selected to develop, test, and manufacture the propellant isolation valve,” and the parties subsequently executed purchase order 4410009820 (the “441 P.O.”). ECF No. 189 at 5. Performance of the work under the 441 P.O. did not call for Plaintiff to deliver hardware to Defendant. ECF No. 201-1 29. Rather, the work called for the hardware to “be designed, analyzed, manufactured, and tested in support of development.” Id. 29. In April 2015, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into Purchase Order 200033660 (the “200 P.O.”) which “called for the delivery of propellant isolation valve hardware in early 2016.” ECF No. 189 at 7; ECF No. 201-1
