ORDER ON MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S TRADE SECRET DISCLOSURE
Defendant IQSystem, Inc. (“IQS”) filed a motion to enforce the court’s December 21, 2015 order directing Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. to submit a particularized trade secret disclosure. Defendant Almawave USA, Inc. (“Almawave”) joins in IQS’s motion. [Docket Nos. 459 (Mot.), 472.] Plaintiff timely filed an opposition. [Docket No. 541 (Opp’n).] This matter is appropriate for resolution without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-l(b). For the following reasons, IQS’s motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a startup that develops artificial intelligence technology. In this action, Plaintiff pursues a number of claims for relief, including a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets against all Defendants based upon their alleged violation of California Civil Code section 3426, California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”). In
On December 21, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part IQS’s motion (Docket No. 331). Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, No. 15-CV-00798 HSG,
Plaintiff timely filed its trade secret disclosure on the public docket. [Docket No. 372 (Disclosure).] IQS challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiffs disclosure. It moves to enforce the court’s December 21, 2015 order that Plaintiff provide a thorough and complete identification of the trade secrets that are the basis of its CUTSA claim. It also asks the court to sanction Plaintiff by precluding Plaintiffs introduction of evidence as to its CUTSA claim and/or dismissing Plaintiffs suit for failing to specify the trade secrets at issue,
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standards
California Civil Code section 3426.1 defines a trade secret as follows:
“Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to 'Other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d). “The sipe qua non of a trade secret, then, is the plaintiffs possession of information of a type that can, at the possessor’s option, be made known to others, or withheld from them, i.e., kept secret.” Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp.,
A patent protects an idea, i.e., an invention, against appropriation by others. Trade secret law does not protect ideas as such. Indeed, a trade secret may consist of something we would not ordinarily consider an idea (a conceptual datum) at all, but more a fact (an empirical datum), such as a customer’s preferences, or the location of a mineral deposit. In either case, the trade secret is not the idea or fact itself, but information tending to communicate (disclose) the idea or fact to another. Trade secret law, in short, protects only the right to control the dissemination of information.
It is critical to any CU-TSA cause of action—and any defense—that the information claimed to have been misappropriated be clearly identified.
Id. at 220-21 (emphases in original).
Under section 2019.210, a plaintiff is required “to identify or designate the trade secrets at issue with .‘sufficient particularity’ to limit the permissible scope of discovery by distinguishing the trade secrets ‘from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge of those persons ... skilled in the trade.’ ” Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court,
“ ‘[Reasonable particularity’ should ... be understood in light of the purpose of section 2019.210,” which is as follows:
First, [section 2019.210] promotes well-investigated claims and dissuades the filing of meritless trade secret complaints. Second, it prevents plaintiffs froth using the discovery process as a means to obtain the defendant’s trade secrets. Third, the rule assists the court in framing the appropriate scope of discovery and in determining whether plaintiffs discovery requests fall within that scope. Fourth, .it enables defendants to form complete and well-reasoned defenses, ensuring that they need not wait until the eve of trial to effectively defend against charges of trade secret misappropriation.
Lilith Games,
B. Plaintiffs Trade Secret Disclosure is Insufficient
Plaintiffs trade secret disclosure consists of a publicly-filed document listing 55 paragraphs of purported trade secrets. It falls 'far short of the “reasonable particularity” standard. In large part, it reads like an inventory of categories of Plaintiffs scientific or strategic business information. Rather than separately discuss each of the 55 paragraphs, the court will describe the basic problems with Plaintiffs disclosure, illustrate 'each problem with examples, and list other paragraphs with similar deficiencies.
As a preliminary matter, the fact that Plaintiff publicly filed its trade secret disclosure belies the proposition that it contains information specific enough to be considered “confidential” trade secrets. Section 2019.210 does not expressly require a plaintiff alleging a CUTSA claim to file the trade secret disclosure under seal. However, the statute contemplates the need for such a procedure by providing that “a party alleging ... misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate under Section 3426.5 of the Civil Code.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210. California Civil Code section 3426.5' in turn requires a court to “preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means,” including granting protective orders, holding in camera hearings, and sealing records. Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.5. In cases in which courts have addressed the sufficiency of a plaintiffs identification of alleged trade secrets, the parties have filed the disclosures under seal, and courts discuss the secrets in either “purposefully vague” terms or redact portions of the opinions, See, e.g., Advanced Modular,
The court also notes that in some cases, especially those involving technical or scientific information such as this one, plaintiffs have supported their trade secret disclosures with declarations by . expert witnesses which attempt to distinguish the alleged trade secrets.from information already known in the field. See, e.g., Advanced Modular,
Turning to Plaintiffs disclosure, problems are evident from the outset. The first two paragraphs contain “catchall” descriptions that refer to allegations made in pleadings and other court filings. The first paragraph of the disclosure informs the reader that Plaintiffs trade secrets include “[a]ll information and documents identified by Plaintiff as containing its trade secrets at issue in this case in response to discovery propounded by or sought by” any defendant, as well as “the information and documents identified in Plaintifffs] ... First Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint.” Disclosure at ¶ 1. In the next paragraph, Plaintiff identifies “[a]ll information and documents identified with particularity in Plaintiffs documents produced to the Defendants at Bates Numbers Loop-00019679 to Loop-00020223.” Id. at ¶ 2. As to the first category, the court has already rejected Plaintiffs prior attempt to rely on the pleadings and other filings to satisfy its trade secret disclosure obligations. Regarding the second catego
Plaintiff divides the remaining 58 paragraphs of its trade secret disclosure into three groups: technical data, business development/marketing data, and financial/operational data. The vast majority of Plaintiffs disclosures consist of paragraphs in which Plaintiff simply lists categories of alleged trade secrets in broad terms. Paragraph 4 is representative of the level of specificity Plaintiff uses when describing categories of claimed trade secrets:
Application of Plaintiffs technology to the analysis of big data generally owned by medium to large companies and governmental entities (including the target customers and partners from among those types of entities) with large volumes of structured and unstructured data from multiple sources and in need of quickly performing analyses of the data and obtain actionable inputs or results that can' quickly be used for a variety of applications in various fields including customer relationship management, customer experience needs.
Disclosure at ¶ 4. This does not constitute a “particularized” disclosure of trade secrets, but is simply a listing of concepts that Plaintiff asserts constitute its trade secret information. See, e.g., Disclosure at ¶¶ 3, 6-8, 10-30, 32-42, 45-50, 54; see Soc. Apps,
Rather than a “reasonably particular” list of trade secrets, Plaintiffs disclosure resembles an effort to categorize every piece of information or know-how that could potentially have value to the company. For example,' paragraph 3 lists unnamed experiments, test results, research, analysis, evaluations, applications, and design concepts, among other things, as examples of Plaintiffs “highly confidential technical data.” Disclosure at ¶ 3. The disclosure is devoid of any details about the claimed experiments, test results, research, etc. Paragraph 19 is similarly vague and unspecific: “Plaintiffs confidential modeling and discussions regarding its development and experimentation of supervised and unsupervised artificial intelligence technology.” Id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiffs technique of listing general concepts or categories of information is plainly insufficient; .Defendants cannot fairly be expected to rebut Plaintiffs trade secrets claim without a reasonably concrete definition of
In many of the paragraphs, particularly those classified under the “Business De-velopmenVMarketing Data” and “Financial/Operational Data” headings, Plaintiff identifies categories of information such as “actual and prospective investors and partners,” (¶-34), “key contact information ... at a large Japanese technology company,” (¶ 36), “key contacts at a major telephone company,” (¶ 38), “confidential target partner, client, investor, supplier, employee, consultant, advisor information,” (¶ 42), and “key service providers” (¶46). See also Disclosure at ¶¶ 17, 37, 39, 45-47, 54. Potential investors, clients, suppliers, or contacts theoretically could constitute pro-tectable facts. However, as noted above, Plaintiffs disclosure was unaccompanied by any supporting documentation, and there is no indication that Plaintiffs identified these claimed trade secrets with more specificity. Without more, Defendants are left to guess. Who exactly are the secret companies or individuals? Are the names easily identifiable, or must Defendants engage in mindreading to determine which of them constitute trade secrets? What prevented Plaintiff from naming them in a sealed document? Plaintiffs categorical descriptions render it impossible for Defendants to conduct public domain or other research to challenge the alleged secrecy of the information at issue. Instead, Defendants are left to guess at the specifics. See Brescia,
Many of the paragraphs in Plaintiffs disclosures contain “catchall” wording such as “including” when describing the trade secrets. For example, paragraph 33 states, “Plaintiffs confidential information, including regarding problems experienced with certain tests ...” (emphasis added). Disclosure at ¶ 33; see also id. at ¶¶ 13-14, 18, 21-22, 33-35, 37, 45, 49-50, 55. The Ninth Circuit has rejected the use of “catchall” language, holding that such language is insufficiently specific “because it does not clearly refer to tangible trade secret material.” Imax,
Several paragraphs read more like requests for production of documents rather than trade secret disclosures. For example, paragraphs 51 and 52 identify “[a]ll information stored in Plaintiffs Apple MacBook Air computer ... assigned to Anna Gatti in 2012 for use in conjunction with Plaintiffs .business” and “[a]ll information stored in Plaintiffs data-accounts used by Gatti while she purported to work as Plaintiffs CEO and President.” Disclosure . at ¶¶ 51, 52. Similarly, in another
In several paragraphs, Plaintiff identifies categories of information, and states that the specifics have been disclosed to Defendants in discovery and/or identifies the Bates numbers of documents which it apparently contends contain the secret information. See, e.g., Disclosure at ¶¶ 3, 5, 9, 16-17, 21-22, 26, 31-32, 37, 40, 47-48. While on their face these paragraphs appear to be more specific than those described above, they also do not satisfy the requirement of “reasonable particularity.” This is because simply stating that specifics have been “provided in discovery” does not identify where in the discovery the alleged trade secret can be found. For example, paragraph 48 lists, “Plaintiffs confidential contracts and agreements setting forth offer letters and employment agreements and confidentiality agreements with Anna Gatti, Dario Vig-nudelli and DB as discovered to date.” Id. at ¶ 48. However, Plaintiff does not specify which contracts and agreements contain the alleged trade secrets, nor does it describe where the contracts and agreements can be found in Plaintiffs discovery responses or productions. Moreover, identifying documents alone would not be an adequate substitute for detailed identification of the trade secrets therein, since review of the documents may not inform Defendants as to what precisely Plaintiff is asserting is a trade secret. As a further example, paragraph 31 lists, “Plaintiffs confidential patent application provided to Gatti on May 29, 2014, as set forth at Loop-00020163-66. The Plaintiffs patent application that Gatti obtained at the time, purporting to be acting as Plaintiffs CEO was confidential and remained confidential for an - extended period of time through 2015.” Id. at ¶ 31. This paragraph is confusing and does not clearly identify the claimed trade secret. To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting that its patent application is a trade secret, it does not specify which portion of the application describes the claimed secret.
In its opposition, Plaintiff argues that its trade secret disclosure and “various discovery served on the Defendants” satisfy its section 2019.210 obligations, but offers no support for its position. See Opp’n at 2. The court finds Plaintiffs contention without merit. Notably, Plaintiff does not specifically identify any of its discovery responses that purportedly identified its trade secrets.
Finally, Plaintiff responds by complaining that IQS has refused to respond to Plaintiffs discovery. This argument is irrelevant, since Plaintiff does not explain how it needs discovery from Defendants in order to identify with particularity its own trade secrets that it has put at issue in this case. See Comp. Econs.,
In sum, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s December 21, 2015 order to provide a “thorough and complete” identification of the trade secrets at issue in this litigation in accordance with section 2019.210. The court notes that in its December 21, 2015 order, it warned Plaintiff that “[a]ny future amendment to [its] disclosure [would] only be permitted upon a showing of good cause.” Loop,
€. Sanctions
Although not entirely clear, it appears that IQS seeks preclusive sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) barring Plaintiff from introducing evidence related to its CUTSA claim, or in the alternative, dismissal of all of Plaintiffs claims under Rule 41(b) for its failure to obey the court’s December 21, 2015 order. Mot. at ll.
Plaintiffs main response to IQS’s request for sanctions is its assertion that it did in fact comply with the December 21, 2015 order by filing an adequate trade secret disclosure.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IQS’s motion is granted. Plaintiffs trade secret disclosure is insufficient, and violated the undersigned’s December 21, 2015 order. The issue of sanctions for Plaintiffs failure to comply with the court’s December 21, 2015 order is deferred to Judge Gilliam.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. California Civil Code section 3426.5 allows a court to enter appropriate orders to ensure the confidentiality of a plaintiff’s trade secrets identified in accordance with section 2019.210. ■ ‘
. In one article exploring the "ubiquitous” problem of litigating disputes related to identification of trade secrets, the authors propose a rule that "if the list of alleged secrets is not marked as a confidential document or could have been listed verbatim in the complaint without actually disclosing the plaintiff's alleged trade secrets, the list is prima facie insufficient,” for "[n]o plaintiff making a good faith identification would disclose its alleged secrets in a non-confidential document.” Charles Tait Graves & Brian D. Range, Identification of Trade Secret Claims in Litigation: Solutions for a Ubiquitous Dispute, 5 Nw. J. Tech & Intel!. Prop. 68, 91 (2006).
. The court notes that in several paragraphs Plaintiff appears to refer to patent applications. See, e.g., Disclosure at ¶¶ 5, 7, 9, 13. However, "[i]t is well established that the disclosure of a trade secret in a patent places the information comprising the secret into the public domain.” Porcier v. Microsoft' Corp., 123 F,Supp.2d 520, 528 (N.D.CaI.2000) (citation omitted),
. In its reply,, IQS contends that Defendants propounded two interrogatories asldng Plaintiff to identify its trade secrets. Brayer Decl., Apr. 6, 2016, ¶¶ 3, 4. Plaintiff did not respond
. The reason this is unclear is because IQS moves for the Rule 37(b)(2)(A) sanctions described above, but also requests an order enforcing the December 21, 2015 order to provide a thorough and complete trade secret disclosure. Mot. at 9.
. Plaintiff also argues that IQS failed to comply with Local Rule 7-8, which governs the form and timing of motions for sanctions. Opp'n at 2. However, Plaintiff does not identify the perceived failure, nor does Plaintiff explain why it believes Local Rule 7-8 applies in this instance,