Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08025/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRESIDIO TRUST,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-08025-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 11

On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Evans, representing himself, filed a complaint 

against Defendant Presidio Trust for trade secret misappropriation in violation of the Defense of 

Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836, and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act 

(“CUTSA”), California Civil Code § 3426. See Dkt. No. 1. That same day, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Dkt. No. 3. On December 23, 2019, the Court denied 

the motion, but granted Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies 

that the Court identified. See Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint, see Dkt. 

No. 10 (“FAC”), and an accompanying motion to file under seal, see Dkt. No. 11. The Court 

considers Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in light of the amended complaint, as 

well as the motion to seal.

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

A. Legal Standard

The Court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis if it is 

satisfied that the would-be litigant cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action and 

that the action states a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2); 

Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that 

Case 4:19-cv-08025-HSG Document 13 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 6
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the Court review an in forma pauperis complaint before directing the United States Marshal to 

serve the complaint. Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234, & n.8. The Court must dismiss a complaint if it 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 

(9th Cir. 1998).

“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 

2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–31 (9th Cir. 2000)). The complaint must 

include a “short and plain statement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and “sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff must provide the grounds that entitle him to relief.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court construes the complaint liberally and affords him the 

benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); 

cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). The Court is not, 

however, required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions 

of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 

2001).

B. Discussion

In denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis initially, the Court explained 

that Plaintiff’s complaint did not contain any description of the trade secrets. See Dkt. No. 9. The 

Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that provided sufficient detail regarding the 

subject matter of the trade secrets to allow the Court to evaluate whether the purported trade 

secrets are distinguishable from matters of general knowledge. See id. (citing Space Data Corp. v. 

X, No. 16-CV-03260-BLF, 2017 WL 5013363, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017)). Having reviewed 

the FAC, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided this detail. The FAC remains almost

identical to the original complaint, with the exception of ¶ 23, entitled “Disclosure of Trade 

Secrets.” See Dkt. No. 10 at 8. Rather than provide any information about the subject matter of 

Case 4:19-cv-08025-HSG Document 13 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 6
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the trade secrets in the complaint, however, Plaintiff states that the “[d]escription of the trade 

secrets is included in Exhibit 4.” See id. Plaintiff then attaches two unredacted exhibits to the 

administrative motion to seal, Exhibits 2 and 4. See Dkt. No. 11. Collectively, Plaintiff has 

attached over thirty pages of alleged trade secrets. Id. However, critically, Plaintiff still does not 

explain the subject matter of these trade secrets, and it is not self-evident from the face of the 

documents.

The Court understands that Plaintiff is concerned about making public his alleged trade 

secrets. But as the Court explained in its prior order, to prove that a plaintiff is the owner of a 

trade secret, a plaintiff “need not ‘spell out the details of the trade secret,” but must “describe the 

subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general 

knowledge in the trade or of special persons who are skilled in the trade, and to permit the 

defendant to ascertain at least the boundaries within which the secret lies.” Space Data Corp. v. X, 

No. 16-CV-03260-BLF, 2017 WL 5013363, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) (quotations omitted). 

Plaintiff must, therefore, provide sufficient detail to give both the Court and Defendant adequate 

notice of the boundaries of the alleged trade secrets and an opportunity to assess whether 

Plaintiff’s purported trade secrets are distinguishable from matters of general knowledge. 

The Court finds that the FAC still fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and 

accordingly DENIES the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES the amended 

complaint.

II. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff also moves to seal two documents, which he contends contain the trade secrets at 

issue in this action. See Dkt. No. 11. He attaches these unredacted documents as Exhibits 2 and 4 

to the administrative motion to file under seal. See Dkt. No. 11-3, Ex. 2; Dkt. No. 11-5, Ex. 4.

A. Legal Standard

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 

Case 4:19-cv-08025-HSG Document 13 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 6
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 

may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 

without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The 

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

B. Discussion

Plaintiff filed a motion to file under seal the documents that purportedly contain his trade 

secrets at issue in this action. See Dkt. No. 11. The Court presumes that these documents are 

intended to supplement the FAC. See Dkt. No. 3 at 8 (citing to “Exhibit 4”). Because the 

complaint is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons 

standard governs the motion to seal. See, e.g., Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., No. 16-CV03260-BLF, 2018 WL 10454862, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2018) (finding compelling reasons 

Case 4:19-cv-08025-HSG Document 13 Filed 03/11/20 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

standard governed motion to seal portions of the complaint).

However, as explained above, it is unclear from these additional documents—even when 

read in conjunction with the complaint—what within these pages are the purported trade secrets. 

Plaintiff’s accompanying declaration merely concluded that he has personal knowledge of the 

“facts, data, and information comprising the trade secrets” contained in these documents. See Dkt. 

No. 11. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown a compelling reason why the material should 

be sealed, and DENIES the motion to file under seal.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

DISMISSES the complaint.

Despite these deficiencies, the Court cannot say at this stage that amending the complaint 

would be futile. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] pro se litigant 

is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal 

of the action.”). Plaintiff may still be able to allege sufficient facts to state a claim under both 

DTSA and CUTSA. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. Therefore, Plaintiff shall file an amended 

complaint by no later than April 10, 2020. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff should clearly 

identify the facts supporting each of the two claims under DTSA and CUTSA, including sufficient 

detail regarding the subject matter of the trade secrets at issue. To the extent Plaintiff directs the 

Court to specific documents, he should still provide an explanation identifying the documents and 

explaining their significance. The Court cautions that Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be 

dismissed without leave to amend if he does not correct the deficiencies the Court has identified in 

this order.

Alternatively, Plaintiff may proceed with this action by paying the required filing fee by 

April 10, 2020.

The Court advises Plaintiff that the Legal Help Center at both the San Francisco and 

Oakland Federal Courthouses provides free information and limited-scope legal advice to pro se

litigants in civil cases. Services are provided by appointment only. An appointment may be 

scheduled by either: (1) signing up in the appointment book located outside the door of the Legal 

Case 4:19-cv-08025-HSG Document 13 Filed 03/11/20 Page 5 of 6
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Help Center in San Francisco or Oakland, or (2) calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing 

federalprobonoproject@sfbar.org.

Further, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal. Dkt. No. 11. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), within seven (7) days of this order, Plaintiff must file 

unredacted versions of the documents. Or, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to file under seal 

within seven (7) days of this order if he can articulate why there is a compelling reason to seal the 

material.

The Court also VACATES the case management conference currently scheduled for 

March 17, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/11/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-08025-HSG Document 13 Filed 03/11/20 Page 6 of 6