Cutera, Inc. v. Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc., 444 F.Supp.3d 1198

Cutera and Lutronic are direct competitors in medical aesthetic devices; in January 2020 four senior Cutera sales/marketing employees (and later several more) resigned and joined Lutronic.
Forensic analysis of the former employees’ Cutera laptops showed large transfers of folders/files to external drives, cloud accounts, or email and evidence of substantial deletions shortly before or after resignation.
Cutera alleges the transferred files contain a variety of confidential compilations: customer lists/contacts, pricing and discount histories, sales reports, market and business analyses, employee compensation data, and product roadmaps.
An email chain after Cutera filed its TRO motion shows Lutronic staff praising an “Aesthetic Triangle” presentation delivered by former Cutera employees; Cutera claims this is a trade-secret sales method.
Cutera filed suit (CUTSA, DTSA, RICO, tortious interference, unfair competition, aiding and abetting) and moved for a temporary restraining order and evidence-preservation order; the court granted a narrowed TRO, an evidence-preservation order, set a $5,000 bond, and scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of trade secrets	Cutera: compilations (customer lists, pricing, sales plans, product roadmaps) are protectable trade secrets kept confidential.	Lutronic: some methods/information are publicly known or not sufficiently secret.	Court: Cutera likely shows protectable trade-secret compilations and reasonable secrecy measures for at least some categories.
Misappropriation	Cutera: former employees copied and deleted files around resignation and used them at Lutronic.	Lutronic: mere possession insufficient; denies improper use and contests public availability of some material.	Court: forensic evidence of copying plus post-hire use inference makes misappropriation likely at this stage.
Irreparable harm	Cutera: use of misappropriated information will cause competitive injury, loss of goodwill and recruitment harm not fully compensable by money.	Lutronic: monetary damages adequate; any harm is speculative.	Court: Cutera likely to suffer irreparable harm—evidence of use and deletion risks support finding.
Preservation, scope, and bond	Cutera: preservation order and limited injunction needed; small bond acceptable.	Lutronic: litigation hold suffices; requested large bond unsupported.	Court: Grants preservation order and narrower TRO; sets bond at $5,000.

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction/TRO)
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (purpose and duration of TRO to preserve status quo)
MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussion of CUTSA and trade-secret principles)
Pyro Spectaculars N., Inc. v. Souza, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (protection of compiled customer information and scope of injunction)
Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013) (limits on presuming irreparable harm; need for evidence)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (injunctive-relief principles affecting presumption of irreparable harm)
Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2011) (trade-secret injunction and irreparable-harm analysis)
Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2003) (discretion to require or waive bond under Rule 65)
Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court discretion on bond amount)
DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Bunner, 116 Cal. App. 4th 241 (2004) (trade-secret definition: value from being unknown)
Morlife, Inc. v. Perry, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1514 (1997) (customer lists can be trade secrets when nonpublic and developed with effort)