1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8

9 QUINTARA BIOSCIENCES, INC., 10 Plaintiff, No. C 20-04808 WHA

11 v.

12 RUIFENG BIZTECH INC., et al., ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

13 Defendants.

JUDGMENT AND FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

14 15 16 In this acrimonious dispute between former business partners, defendants move for 17 summary judgment and for terminating sanctions (Dkt. Nos. 141, 163). Based on evidence 18 submitted by plaintiff Quintara Biosciences, Inc., some of which the undersigned inspected 19 during in-person oral argument, this order finds there is sufficient evidence of misappropriation 20 of Quintara’s alleged trade secrets to deny defendants’ motions. 21 Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute of material fact, those 22 facts that may affect the outcome of the suit. “[T]he substantive law's identification of which 23 facts are critical and which facts are irrelevant . . . governs.” A genuine dispute contains 24 sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. 25 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986). 26 At the hearing and in their briefing, defendants anchored their argument in a list of 27 documents Quintara had provided to defendants pursuant to an April 2020 order issued by 1 related to the trade secrets at issue, Judge Tse’s order required Quintara to provide a statement 2 describing the kind of trade secret information to be found on computers in defendants’ 3 possession. As Judge Tse mandated, “[t]he more specifics plaintiff can provide, the better” 4 (Opp. 10-11; Dkt. No. 109). On April 21, Quintara complied and sent defendants a declaration 5 from Dr. Zhao as well as a revised list of documents (organized by bates number) that 6 comprised the database trade secrets (Wiseman Decl. Exh. H, Dkt. No. 165-10). 7 At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, defense counsel stated that 8 defendants’ forensic expert had not found any relevant documents from Quintara’s April 21 list 9 on defendants’ computers, with the sole exception of one file (“process_orders.xlsx”’) that had 10 not been modified since January 27, 2020, which was before the lockout and dispute (Wiseman 11 Decl. Exh. M at 6-7). That statement proved to be misleading as argument developed as 12 defense counsel was eventually forced to admit that defendants last accessed the document 5 13 January 23, 2021 — more than six months after the dispute arose (Opp. 16). Candor up front 14 would have saved a lot of time at the hearing. Moreover, Quintara identified a second 3 15 document in their briefing and at the hearing (“Dec-Feb 2020 Customer list.xlsx”) also found a 16 in both Quintara and defendants’ files (Opp. 14). In light of the content of these two 3 17 documents, which the undersigned had the opportunity to review at the hearing, and the 18 existence of some evidence suggesting misappropriation, material factual disputes remain. 19 Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and for terminating sanctions are DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: August 11, 2021 Ls Pree 24 □

WILLIAM ALSUP

25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28