Unlocking the Secret of California's Trade Secret Identification Requirement: Part 1
California trade secret law, through California Code of Civil Procedure §2019.210, presents a statutory framework unique among state and federal trade secret laws that requires trade secret plaintiffs to identify the misappropriated trade secrets before discovery commences. This article examines the genesis, purpose, and leading cases interpreting §2019.210.
October 11, 2019 at 01:56 PM
8 minute read
California trade secret law, through California Code of Civil Procedure §2019.210, presents a statutory framework unique among state and federal trade secret laws that requires trade secret plaintiffs to identify the misappropriated trade secrets before discovery commences. This requirement serves to deter meritless trade secret actions, define the scope of relevant discovery, and provide notice to defendants so they may fashion their defenses accordingly. Understanding what this provision does—and does not—require is critical for trade secret litigants.
The California appellate courts have provided limited guidance on what constitutes an adequate identification of misappropriated trade secrets. Appellate courts will give trial courts broad discretion in making such determinations, so no precise standard exists by which to measure the sufficiency of a trade secret identification. Because such identifications also naturally include confidential information, pertinent details from prior cases are often kept under seal and hidden from the public, preventing potential litigants and courts from relying on earlier disclosures for guidance. Clear legal precedent showing what constitutes an adequate identification is thus lacking. This article examines the genesis, purpose, and leading cases interpreting §2019.210.
History of California §2019.210
Unlike other forms of intellectual property such as patents, registered copyrights or trademarks, in a trade secret case no official document exists at the outset that defines the asserted intellectual property. Without a clear delineation of the trade secrets to be litigated, parties and courts face uncertainty and complications litigating an unidentified trade secret. Recognizing the significant challenges to the parties and the Court that this situation poses, the Court of Appeal in Diodes v. Franzen (1968) 260 Cal. App. 2d 244, 253, required that the trade secret plaintiff identify its trade secrets in its complaint.
Before a defendant is compelled to respond to a complaint based upon claimed misappropriation or misuse of a trade secret and to embark on discovery which may be both prolonged and expensive, the complainant should describe the subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge of those persons who are skilled in the trade, and to permit the defendant to ascertain at least the boundaries within which the secret lies.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250