Makina Ve Kimya Endustrisi A.S. v. Zenith Quest Corporation, 3:22-cv-00066

Background

MKE (Turkish state-owned defense manufacturer) sues Zenith and related defendants under the DTSA and VUTSA for alleged misappropriation of firearm-related trade secrets (TDPs, molds, customer/vendor lists, etc.).
Major discovery dispute: whether a trade-secret plaintiff must identify alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity” before a defendant must produce its own proprietary materials.
Cross-motions: MKE moved to compel broad categories of Zenith documents and production of texts; Zenith moved to compel (against MKE) and for a protective order to withhold its own trade-secret materials until MKE particularizes its claims.
Court found MKE’s complaint/decl. described only broad categories (TDPs, molds, lists) and were insufficiently particular for discovery into Zenith’s proprietary materials.
Rulings: Zenith’s motion for protective order granted in full; MKE’s motion granted only as to responsive, nonprivileged text/WhatsApp messages and denied without prejudice in other respects. Court set deadlines for (a) MKE to provide a particularized list of alleged trade secrets and to amend interrogatory answers and productions, and (b) Zenith to supplement productions responsive to specified RFPs after receiving that list. Zenith is not required to produce documents solely concerning its unreleased ZF-56 firearm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of "reasonable particularity" objection to RFPs 10–28	MKE: Zenith failed to timely lodge the objection in its August 2023 RFP responses, so it waived the defense.	Zenith: raised general objections and later asserted particularity grounds; Court may excuse any technical waiver.	Court found waiver but excused enforcement of waiver for good cause; sustained Zenith’s particularity objection.
Whether MKE identified trade secrets with "reasonable particularity"	MKE: Complaint, Akkaynak decl., and discovery exhibits already identify TDPs, molds, lists sufficiently at this stage.	Zenith: MKE only alleges broad categories; lacks itemized, particularized list needed to assess relevance and to limit disclosure of Zenith's secrets.	Court: MKE’s descriptions are too general; ordered MKE to produce a particularized list and to amend interrogatory answers.
Protective order / withholding Zenith’s trade-secret materials	MKE: existing protective order and its pleadings make further withholding unjustified; Zenith should produce responsive materials now.	Zenith: needs MKE’s particularized list before producing its own proprietary drawings/processes to a direct competitor.	Court granted protective order; Zenith may withhold its trade-secret documents until MKE provides particularized list; then must produce relevant nonprivileged materials.
Relevance of ZF-56 materials (RFPs 40–46)	MKE: ZF-56, announced after suit, appears based on same roller-delayed platform and thus falls within Complaint’s allegations.	Zenith: ZF-56 not mentioned in Complaint; discovery cannot be used to expand pleadings; ZF-56 not relevant.	Court: ZF-56 documents are not relevant to current pleadings; Zenith need not produce materials relating solely to ZF-56; RFPs 40–41 will be revisited after MKE’s particularized list.
Adequacy of MKE productions responsive to Zenith’s RFPs (security, NDAs, policies, customer/vendor lists, internal investigation)	MKE: it produced many documents and will search further; some requests lack responsive materials.	Zenith: several productions incomplete or improperly limited (e.g., NDAs limited to U.S. vendors; missing security clearance docs; withheld customer/vendor lists; privilege log absent).	Court ordered MKE to complete productions for specified RFPs (5–6, 14, 27–28, 39–40, 48–51) or expressly claim privilege with a log.
Text messages / ESI from company phones	MKE: seeks texts from former MKE personnel on Zenith-issued phones and other phone ESI.	Zenith: many company phones returned to carrier; but agreed to produce WhatsApp messages from four custodians and to search further.	Court: ordered Zenith within 21 days to produce all responsive, nonprivileged electronic messages from phones of Kutlay (Peter) Kaya, Hanri Kaya, Bahadir Hamanci, and Mehmet Tokluoglu; other phone ESI issue addressed by custodian statements.

Key Cases Cited

Va. Dep't of Corrs. v. Jordan, 921 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2019) (describing Rule 26(b)(1) limits: relevance and proportionality)
Decision Insights, Inc. v. Sentia Grp., Inc., [citation="311 F. App'x 586"] (4th Cir. 2009) (affirming order requiring plaintiff to provide a particularized list of trade secrets with good-faith basis)
Synopsys, Inc. v. Risk Based Sec., Inc., 70 F.4th 459 (4th Cir. 2023) (summarizing elements for trade-secret misappropriation)
Smith v. Devine, 126 F.4th 331 (4th Cir. 2025) (district courts have broad discretion to manage discovery)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard and unlocking discovery upon plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standards for pleading plausibility)
Patrick v. Teays Valley Tr., LLC, 297 F.R.D. 248 (N.D. W. Va. 2013) (resisting party bears burden to show discovery exceeds scope)
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226 (M.D.N.C. 2010) (party resisting discovery bears persuasion burden)
Webb v. Green Tree Servicing, 283 F.R.D. 276 (D. Md. 2012) (party seeking protective order bears burden to show good cause)
DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 238 F.R.D. 561 (W.D. Va. 2006) (a party cannot substitute a self-serving summary for requested documents)
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (attorney-client privilege protects communications but not underlying facts)