Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00202/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00202-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and particular circumstances underlying

the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TMX FUNDING, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

IMPERO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET

AL.,

Defendants. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 10-00202 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Docket No. 52]

Defendants Impero Technologies, Inc., Clarence Nicholas Steigelman, Mitchell A. Heinlein,

Joseph Zhang, Ron Lesniak, Michelle Dover, and David Lesniak move to compel identification of

trade secrets pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code Section 2019.210 and for protective order. 

(collectively “defendants”). Plaintiff TMX Funding, Inc. opposes the motion. (“TMX” or

“plaintiff”). Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), defendants’ motion is taken under submission and the

hearing scheduled to be held on May 7, 2010 at 11AM is vacated. Having reviewed the papers and

considered the arguments of counsel,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to compel identification of trade secrets

and for protective order is granted.1

 

Case 5:10-cv-00202-JF Document 124 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 2

 Teledex LLC was a provider of guest room telecommunications solutions and business

applications for the hospitality industry. (”Teledex”). Clarence Nicholas Steigelman, Ronald

Lesniak, Mitchell A. Heinlein, Joseph Zhang, Michelle Dover and David Lesniak are former

employees of Teledex. On or about and between December 7, 2009 and January 3, 2010, TMX

purchased and acquired certain assets and collateral of Teledex. The assets and collateral included,

inter alia, all customer lists, intellectual property rights, trade secrets, proprietary or confidential

information, inventions, technical information, procedures, designs, rights under any contract, all

payment intangibles, and software. In addition, TMX was granted a security interest in Teledex’s

patent, trademark, and copyright security agreements as well as in its inventory and equipment. On

or about December 13, 2009, Teledex employees received notices of termination from the company.

Several former employees, including Clarence Nicholas Steigelman, Joseph Zhang and

Mtichell A. Heinlein, formed their own company named Impero Technologies, Inc. (“Impero”). 

Impero too, is a provider of guest room telecommunications solutions and business applications for

the hospitality industry.

In the complaint, plaintiff TMX alleges claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach

of the duty of loyalty, breach of contract, conversion, unfair competition, interference with

prospective economic advantage, constructive trust and accounting, and violation of penal code

section 502. Complaint for Damages and Permanent Injunction filed January 14, 2010. 

(“Complaint”). (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff TMX alleges, inter alia, that defendants have engaged in

the misappropriation and use of its confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. 

Specifically, plaintiff TMX alleges that defendants have communicated with Teledex customers in

an effort to generate business for Impero or themselves. Plaintiff TMX also alleges that at least

three laptop and two tower computers are missing, account passwords have been changed, and

certain network systems have been damaged.

On February 2, 2010, the court authorized early discovery pursuant to Rule 26(d). Amended

Order Authorizing Early Discovery Pursuant to FRCP 26(d) dated February 2, 2010. (“February 2,

2010 Amended Order”). Pursuant to the February 2, 2010 Amended Order, the parties were

authorized to commence party and third party discovery, including depositions pursuant to Rule 30

Case 5:10-cv-00202-JF Document 124 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 3

and 31, interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33, document production pursuant to Rule 34, requests for

admissions pursuant to Rule 36, and subpoenas pursuant to Rule 45. In addition, the parties were

authorized to commence “[a]ny other discovery method that may be authorized under the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, local rules, or otherwise.” February 2, 2010 Amended Order at 2.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210, plaintiff TMX identified

11 general categories of trade secrets. Plaintiff’s California Code of Civil Procedure Section

2019.210 Statement filed on March 15, 2010. (“CCP Section 2019.210 Statement”). Plaintiff

concluded the CCP Section 2019.210 Statement by stating that “[a] list of specific customers,

suppliers, contact information, and technical information will be produced in discovery only after

the Court enters a protective order governing the use and disclosure of confidential, proprietary and

trade secret information.” Id. at 3. On February 24, 2010, the court entered the stipulated protective

order in the above-captioned action. (Docket No. 49).

Here, the court finds the use of Section 2019.210 procedures for a misappropriation of trade

secrets case will serve a beneficial function in the instant case. As a matter of case management,

this court generally requires a party claiming misappropriation of trade secrets to adequately identify

those trade secrets before conducting discovery into its opponents’ proprietary information. At least

one court has taken the position that Section 2019(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure is

directly applicable to actions in federal court under the Erie Doctrine. See Computer Economics,

Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2nd 980 (S.D. Cal. 1999). However, because this court finds

it appropriate to require identification of trade secrets as a case management tool, it is unnecessary

to address the question under the Erie Doctrine. 

A trade secret is ‘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.

Perlan Therapuetics, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 178 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1342, 101 Cal. Rptr. 3d 211, 219

(2009) (citing Civ. Code §3426.1). “‘In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret . .

., before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation

shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity.’” Id. at 1343.

Case 5:10-cv-00202-JF Document 124 Filed 05/05/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 4

In Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., the court found no conflict between

Rule 26(b)(1) and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 because identifying alleged

and misappropriated trade secrets assists the court in determining the appropriate scope of discovery

and whether plaintiff’s discovery requests fall within that scope. Advante Intl Corp., et al. v. Mintel

Learning Technology, et al., 2006 WL 3371576 *3 (N.D. Cal.)(citing Computer Economics, Inc. v.

Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d at 989).

Finally, “the mere presence in a complaint of claims made on theories other than trade secret

misappropriation will not necessarily support discovery that goes beyond what would be allowed on

the trade secret claim itself.” Advante Intl Corp., et al. v. Mintel Learning Technology, et al., 2006

WL 3371576 *3 (citing Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App. 4th 826,

835 (2005)(“Where, as here, every cause of action is factually dependent on the misappropriation

allegation, discovery can commence only after the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets have been

identified with reasonable particularity, as required by section 2019.210.”)). 

Plaintiff TMX identifies only broad categories of trade secrets in the CCP Section 2019.210

Statement. For example, subsection (a) identifies “[c]ustomer names and contact information for the

customers and the specific person(s) with purchasing authority and influence over purchasing

decisions at the various customers of Teledex, LLC (“Teledex”)” as a trade secret. No further

information is provided, including the specific customer names, contact information for those

customers, and the name of the person with purchasing authority. In another example, subsection

(g) identifies “[s]upplier names and contact information for Teledex products, components and

materials of Teledex” as a trade secret. Again, no further information is provided, including the

specific supplier names, contact information for those suppliers, and the specific products,

components and materials provided. Indeed, plaintiff TMX previously conceded in the CCP Section

2019.210 Statement that a list of specific customers, suppliers, contact information and technical

information would be provided once the court entered a stipulated protective order. On February 24,

2010, the court entered a stipulated protective order. As pointed out by defendants, some customer

names (and perhaps even some supplier names) are publicly known. Mot. at 6 (“Teledex had many

customers, some of whom were touted in press releases and therefore cannot be trade secrets”). The

Case 5:10-cv-00202-JF Document 124 Filed 05/05/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 This ruling does not conflict with the district court order, inter alia, “prohibiting

Defendants from: (1) failing to return the Teledex laptops and other equipment or materials containing

proprietary, confidential, or trade secret information.” Order Granting Motion for Preliminary

Injunction dated March 18, 2010 at 14. (“March 18, 2010 Order”). See Opposition to Motion for

Protective Order and Motion for Further Identification of Trade Secrets at 2. (“Opp.”). Nor does the

ruling conflict with the February 2, 2010 Amended Order. 

ORDER, page 5

district court noted that “TMX has shown that Teledex took steps to protect and maintain the secrecy

of certain customer information and business plans and strategies . . . .” March 18, 2010 Order at 7. 

(emphasis added). It does not conclude that all customer information (as subsection (a) of the CCP

Section 2019.210 Statement appears to represent) is a trade secret. March 18, 2010 Order at 8

(publicized or ‘readily ascertainable’ identity of customers, as well as product and pricing

information, cannot constitute a protectable trade secret). Because every cause of action is factually

dependent on the misappropriation claim here, discovery may commence only after plaintiff TMX

has identified its trade secrets in all 11 categories with reasonable particularity. Accordingly,

plaintiff TMX shall supplement its CCP Section 2019.210 Statement to identify the alleged

misappropriated trade secrets with reasonable particularity no later than May 14, 2010.2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is denied without

prejudice to a renewed motion.

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5), defendants move for an award of $2,950 in attorneys’ fees for

bringing the above-specified motion to compel. Civ. L.R. 7-8(a) states that any motion for sanctions

must be separately filed. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 5, 2010 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00202-JF Document 124 Filed 05/05/10 Page 5 of 5