Teradata Corporation v. SAP SE
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 TERADATA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 18-cv-03670-WHO
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v. ENFORCE
SAP SE, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 305, 306, 325, 328 Defendants.
On June 12, 2020, following a Case Management Conference, I recognized that Teradata had at that time “146 pending [trade secret] claims” but that “71 of them have not even been mentioned” in responses to SAP’s Interrogatory No. 3 seeking the basis for each trade secret claim asserted against it. Dkt. No. 267. I ordered that “by September 1, 2020, all claims for which a full response to Interrogatory 3 has not been provided should be dropped, absent good cause.” Id. On September 1, 2020, Teradata served an updated response to Interrogatory No. 3, reducing its list to 55 identified misappropriated trade secrets. SAP alleges that of the 55 trade secrets identified on Teradata’s list, Teradata failed to identify any facts explaining how SAP misappropriated 48 of…