1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SALESFORCE.COM, INC., Case No. 19-cv-01710-JST (AGT)

8 Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER REGARDING

9 v. GEA’S TRADE SECRETS

DESIGNATION

10 GEA, INC., Re: ECF No. 76 Defendant. 11

12 Earlier today, the Court held a discovery hearing on the parties’ joint letter at ECF No. 76, 13 in which Salesforce.com, Inc. (“Salesforce”) requests an order compelling GEA, Inc. to disclose 14 its alleged trade secrets with more particularity pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210.1 15 This Order memorializes the Court’s oral ruling granting Salesforce’s request to compel. 16 Section 2019.210 requires that a party alleging trade secret misappropriation “identify the 17 trade secret with reasonable particularity” prior to taking discovery relating to the trade secret. 18 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210. “‘Reasonable particularity’ mandated by section 2019.210 does 19 not mean that the party alleging misappropriation has to define every minute detail of its claimed 20 trade secret at the outset of the litigation.” Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 132 21 Cal. App. 4th 826, 835 (2005). “Nor does it require a discovery referee or trial court to conduct a 22 miniature trial on the merits of a misappropriation claim before discovery may commence.” Id. at 23 835–36. Rather, “reasonable particularity” means that

24 the plaintiff must make some showing that is reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all of the circumstances to identify its 25 alleged trade secret in a manner that will allow the trial court to control the scope of subsequent discovery, protect all parties’ 26 proprietary information, and allow them a fair opportunity to prepare and present their best case or defense at a trial on the merits. 27 ] Id. at 836 (internal citation and brackets omitted). 2 The Court agrees with Salesforce that GEA’s current disclosure falls short of Section 3 2019.210’s “reasonable particularity” requirement as it lacks sufficient detail to allow Salesforce 4 || to determine the parameters of the trade secrets asserted. GEA must amend its disclosure to make 5 clear what it claims each trade secret is. GEA’s amended disclosure should include: 6 (1) a summary of the specific trade secret; (2) the background of the trade secret and a description of how each secret has derived 7 independent, actual or potential economic value by virtue of not being generally known to the public; (3) a description of how each secret 8 has been the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy; and finally (4) each of the precise claimed trade secrets, numbered, with 9 a list of the specific elements for each, as claims would appear at the end of a patent. 10 1] Jobscience, Inc. v. CVPartners, Inc., No. 13-CV-04519-WHA, 2014 WL 852477, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 12 || Feb. 28, 2014). While GEA’s amended disclosure “need not explain how the alleged trade secrets

differ from general knowledge in the trade,” it “must include sufficient detail to enable Y 14 [Salesforce] to investigate and make that determination.” Gatan, Inc. v. Nion Co., No. 15-CV- Oo 15 || 01862-PJH, 2018 WL 2117379, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2018). A 16 mK ok ok 2 17 GEA is ordered to serve on Salesforce an amended trade secrets disclosure by December Z 18 || 21,2020. GEA may not take any discovery relating to the alleged trade secrets until its amended 19 || disclosure has been served. 20 IT ISSO ORDERED. 21 Dated: December 4, 2020 22 23

AL . TSE

24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28