Previously, courts have required trade secret plaintiffs to identify their trade secrets with particularity before the defendants were required to respond to any discovery requests. In practice, no matter how a plaintiff would identify the trade secrets at issue, the defendant would refuse to respond to discovery requests on the grounds that the identification was insufficiently particularized. And the courts would refuse to intercede to state whether the identification was sufficient, or even what was needed to particularize the trade secrets. The net effect was that trade secret claims often went nowhere.
But this new case, Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., holds that trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) do not require a plaintiff to identify its alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity” at the outset of litigation. Whether a plaintiff has sufficiently particularized a trade secret under the DTSA is usually a matter for summary judgment or trial.
This is different from the rules governing discovery in cases brought under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA)., which still requires a plaintiff to identify its alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity” at the outset of litigation.
You can read more about the case at this link:
Impact of Ninth Circuit’s Recent Decision in Federal Trade Secret Cases Under the DTSA – Calbar IP Section Newsstand – Powered by Lexology