Friedman
Friedman v. Quest International Fragrances Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
It is settled law in this Circuit that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to withstand summary judgment, especially in cases where direct proof of wrongdoing is difficult to obtain. We have held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to withstand summary judgment in cases involving securities fraud, Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 82 F.3d 877, 884 (9th Cir.1996), sex and race discrimination, Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d *360 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.1998), copyright infringement, Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir.1987), RICO, River City Markets, Inc. v. Fleming Foods West, Inc., 960 F.2d 1458, 1463 (9th Cir.1992), antitrust, T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir.1987), trademark infringement, Interstellar Starship Serv., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 184 F.3d 1107 , 1111 (9th Cir.1999), First Amendment retaliation claims, Ulrich v. City and County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 979 (9th Cir.2002), and, significantly, misappropriation of trade secrets. Droeger v. Welsh Sporting Goods Corp., 541 F.2d 790, 792 (9th Cir.1976).
Friedman offered direct proof that Quest had access to her venture proposals, Quest…