Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-00404-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALTA DEVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-00404-LHK (VKD)

**REDACTED**

ORDER RE LG ELECTRONIC’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL RE ALTA 

DEVICES’ TRADE SECRETS

IDENTIFICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 58

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Alta Devices (“Alta Devices”) sues for alleged trade secret misappropriation, 

claiming that it is the first to develop a thin-film solar technology using Gallium Arsenide 

(“GaAS”) for commercially viable use. Alta Devices contends that defendant LG Electronics, Inc. 

(“LGE”) expressed an interest in investing in Alta Devices, conditioned on a due diligence review 

of Alta Devices’ manufacturing process, as a pretense for obtaining Alta Devices’ know-how and 

other confidential or proprietary information, and that LGE intended to develop its own 

manufacturing capabilities using Alta Devices’ claimed trade secrets. Dkt. No. 77. Alta Devices 

asserts claims for trade secrets misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1836, et seq. and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 3426, 

et seq., as well as claims for breach of contract, violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and 

for declaratory judgment. Id.

On July 16, 2018, Alta Devices served its “Identification of Trade Secrets Pursuant to Cal. 

C.C.P. § 2019.210” (“Trade Secrets Identification”). LGE now moves to compel Alta Devices to 

disclose the claimed trade secrets with more particularity, contending that the Trade Secrets 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 10
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

Identification is deficient in several respects. Although Alta Devices has since amended its Trade 

Secrets Identification to make certain non-substantive changes, LGE bases its motion on the 

original Trade Secrets Identification served on July 16, 2018. See Dkt. No. 58; Dkt. No. 64-1. 

This order addresses Alta Devices’ original identification and memorializes the Court’s views as 

discussed at the December 4, 2018 motion hearing.

Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the oral arguments 

presented, the Court grants LGE’s motion to compel.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.2101provides that in an action alleging the 

misappropriation of trade secrets under CUTSA, “before commencing discovery relating to the 

trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable 

particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate under Section 3426.5 of the Civil 

Code.” Cal. C.C.P. § 2019.210. Section 3426.5 of the California Civil Code, in turn, permits a 

court to enter appropriate orders to preserve the confidentiality of an alleged trade secret. Cal. 

Civ. Code § 3426.5.

The “reasonable particularity” required by C.C.P. § 2019.210 should be viewed in light of 

the purposes of the statute:

First, it promotes well-investigated claims and dissuades the filing of 

meritless trade secret complaints. Second, it prevents plaintiffs from 

using the discovery process as a means to obtain the defendant’s trade 

secrets. Third, the rule assists the court in framing the appropriate 

scope of discovery and in determining whether plaintiff’s discovery 

requests fall within that scope. Fourth, it enables defendants to form 

complete and well-reasoned defenses, ensuring that they need not 

wait until the eve of trial to effectively defend against charges of trade 

secret misappropriation.

Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 132 Cal. App.4th 826, 833-34 (2005) (citation 

omitted). See also Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1112 (N.D. Cal. 2016) 

(same). Thus, a plaintiff is required “to identify or designate the trade secrets at issue with 

 

1 The parties acknowledge that courts within this district have concluded that section 2019.210 

properly may be applied and enforced in federal litigation. See, e.g., Swarmify, Inc. v. Cloudfare, 

Inc., No. 17-cv-06957 WHA, 2018 WL 2445515, at *2 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2018); Loop AI Labs, 

Inc. v. Gatti, No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR), 2015 WL 9269758, at *3 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2015).

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 10
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

‘sufficient particularity’ to limit the permissible scope of discovery by distinguishing the trade 

secrets ‘from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge of those 

persons . . . skilled in the trade.’” Advanced Modular, 132 Cal. App.4th at 835 (quoting Imax 

Corp. v. Cinema Techs, Inc., 152 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 1998)). Even so, compliance with 

the particularity requirement “does not require the designation itself to detail how the trade secret 

differs from matters of general knowledge in the trade.” Gatan, Inc. v. Nion Co., No. 15-cv01862-PJH, 2018 WL 2117379, at *2 (N.D Cal., May 8, 2018). “Instead, § 2019.210 ‘was 

intended to require the trade secret claimant to identify the alleged trade secret with adequate 

detail to allow the defendant to investigate how it might differ from matters already known and to 

allow the court to craft relevant discovery.’” Id. (quoting Brescia v. Angelin, 172 Cal. App.4th 

133, 147 (2009)).

“‘Reasonable particularity’ mandated by section 2019.210 does not mean that the party 

alleging misappropriation has to define every minute detail of its claimed trade secret at the outset 

of the litigation.” Advanced Modular, 132 Cal. App.4th at 835. “Nor does it require a discovery 

referee or trial court to conduct a miniature trial on the merits of a misappropriation claim before 

discovery may commence.” Id. at 835-36. Rather, “reasonable particularity” means that:

the plaintiff must make some showing that is reasonable, i.e., fair, 

proper, just and rational[,] under all of the circumstances to identify 

its alleged trade secret in a manner that will allow the trial court to 

control the scope of subsequent discovery, protect all parties’ 

proprietary information, and allow them a fair opportunity to prepare 

and present their best case or defense at a trial on the merits.

Id. at 836 (citing City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court, 49 Cal.3d 74, 90 (1989)).

“The degree of ‘particularity’ that is ‘reasonable’ will differ, depending on the alleged 

trade secrets at issue in each case.” Id. For example, where “the alleged trade secrets consist of 

incremental variations on, or advances in the state of the art in a highly specialized technical field, 

a more exacting level of particularity may be required to distinguish the alleged trade secrets from 

matters already known to persons skilled in that field.” Id. However, “at this very preliminary 

stage of the litigation, the proponent of the alleged trade secret is not required, on pain of 

dismissal, to describe it with the greatest degree of particularity possible, or to reach such an 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 10
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

exacting level of specificity that even its opponents are forced to agree the designation is 

adequate.” Id. “What is required is not absolute precision, but ‘reasonable particularity.’” Id.

In assessing the adequacy of a trade secret disclosure, “the designation should be liberally 

construed, and reasonable doubts about its sufficiency resolved in favor of allowing discovery to 

go forward.” Brescia, 172 Cal. App.4th at 149. A court “must exercise its sound discretion in 

determining how much disclosure is necessary to comply with section 2019.210 under the 

circumstances of the case.” Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Super Ct., 178 Cal. App.4th 1333, 1349 

(2009).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court grants LGE’s motion to compel as to the following matters:

A. Form of Identification of Trade Secrets

LGE objects to the narrative form of Alta Devices’ Trade Secrets Identification. While 

there is no requirement that Alta Devices use any particular form to identify its trade secrets, the 

narrative that Alta Devices uses does not satisfy the statutory requirement to identify the alleged 

trade secrets with reasonable particularity. The principle problem is that LGE’s narrative 

disclosure is confusing. It refers to some of the same claimed trade secrets multiple times, but 

frequently the same claimed trade secret is described differently in different parts of the narrative, 

making it difficult for the reader to discern what the trade secret actually is. In addition, Alta

Devices’ narrative disclosure tends not to distinguish between what the trade secret is and what 

information was disclosed to LGE. 

To comply with the requirements of C.C.P. § 2019.210, Alta Devices must describe what 

the trade secret is. In order to facilitate compliance with this requirement, the Court requires Alta 

Devices to amend its disclosure to identify each alleged trade secret as a separate item in list form.

B. Documents Incorporated by Reference

LGE objects to Trade Secrets 3, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 35, 42-52 and 55 on the ground that each 

describes the alleged trade secret by referencing, in whole or in part, a separate document. Alta 

Devices does not respond specifically to LGE’s objection on this ground.

As a general matter, identification of a trade secret may include a reference to a specific 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 4 of 10
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

document or portion of a document, so long as the trade secret is described with reasonable 

particularity. Here, Alta Devices’ disclosures do not meet the particularity requirement.

For example, Trade Secret 51 is described as follows:

————————————————————————

———————————————

Dkt. No. 57-7. This disclosure does not identify the purported trade secret with reasonable 

particularity, in part because it is not clear whether all or only some of the “various” components 

and layers are claimed and whether the trade secret is limited to the particular structure or 

arrangement of components found in the cited document. If Alta Devices contends that specific 

components and layers ———————- are trade secrets, it must identify those components and 

layers. It may do so by reference to a document, if it wishes, so long as it is clear from the 

disclosure for this specific trade secret which components and layers (or their arrangement or 

structure) are claimed to be the trade secret. The other trade secrets suffer from similar problems.

Alta Devices must amend its disclosure to identify these trade secrets with reasonable 

particularity, with or without reference to a separate document.

C. Catch-All Categories

LGE objects to Trade Secrets 1 and 9a2on the ground that they essentially claim, 

generically, any non-public information relating to GaAs-based solar cells and modules that Alta 

Devices ever disclosed to LGE. These trade secrets have been described publicly by Alta Devices 

as follows:

Trade Secret 1: “everything about Alta’s technology not publicly 

revealed” and “[i]n total and as a whole, the research and 

development information provided by Alta to LGE constitutes trade 

secret information.” 

Trade Secret 9a: “technologies relating to GaAs-based solar cells 

and modules.”

Dkt. No. 58 at 6; Dkt. No. 67 at 11. LGE contends that Alta Devices has adopted a “catch-all” 

approach that does not identify any trade secrets with reasonable particularity. Alta Devices 

 

2

Identified as Trade Secret 9 in Alta Devices’ original identification, this claimed trade secret has 

since been re-numbered as Trade Secret 9a.

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 5 of 10
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

responds that because it has limited these alleged trade secrets to any non-public information 

actually disclosed to LGE, LGE has sufficient notice of what the claimed trade secrets are. 

LGE is correct. Generic, catch-all disclosures such as these do not describe the claimed 

trade secrets with reasonable particularity. These alleged trade secrets do not merely require 

clarification. Rather, Trade Secrets 1 and 9a must be removed from Alta Devices’ Trade Secrets 

Identification.

D. Generic Descriptions

LGE objects to Trade Secrets 7-9 and 42-49 on the ground that they are merely generic 

descriptions of categories of technology. In addition, LGE argues that some of these trade secrets 

are described in terms of measurements, which are inherently not secret. Alta Devices responds 

that LGE itself has used these descriptions to describe categories of non-public information it 

obtained from Alta Devices and has thereby effectively acknowledged the sufficiency of these 

descriptions for the purpose of distinguishing the trade secrets at issue from other information 

relating to the technology.

Alta Devices’ descriptions of these alleged trade secrets are not sufficient because they do 

not describe what the trade secret is, but only the category or categories in which the trade secret 

may be found. Among the most egregious examples is Trade Secret 9, which is described as

“—————————————————————.” Dkt. No. 57-7. Perhaps there is 

something that qualifies as a trade secret that has to do with ———————————————

————, but Alta Devices must state with reasonable particularity what that trade secret is and 

not merely the category of technology in which that secret may be found. A less egregious 

example is Trade Secret 42, which is described as “——————————————————

———————————————————————————————————————

—————— has several subparts that refer to different measures of “—————--.” If the 

claimed trade secret is limited to a particular measure of —————--, or to multiple particular 

measures, the requirement for reasonable particularity likely would be satisfied. However, as 

drafted, Alta Devices’ identification of “various measures ... including” is too vague to satisfy the 

particularity requirement. The other trade secrets suffer from similar deficiencies.

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 6 of 10
7

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

Alta Devices must amend its disclosure to identify these trade secrets with reasonable 

particularity, avoiding descriptions that rely on generic categories.

The Court does not decide LGE’s further argument that any trade secrets expressed as 

measurements are not “secret” and cannot be trade secrets for that reason. This argument concerns 

the merits of Alta Devices’ trade secret claim, which this Court does not address.

E. Manufacturing Processes

LGE objects to Trade Secrets 2-4, 10-10c, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 32, 36b, 39 and 52 

on the ground that these alleged trade secrets are described merely as techniques, processes, and 

methods that produce certain results, which are not themselves secret. LGE contends that the 

disclosure fails to describe what the particular technique, process or method is, or how certain 

results were achieved. Alta Devices responds that its disclosure is sufficient for purposes of 

discovery, and emphasizes that the results it claims are, in fact, trade secrets because the fact of 

achieving the results is commercially valuable as proof of concept for the underlying technology.

LGE is correct that some of these trade secrets are not described with reasonable 

particularity. For example, Trade Secret 4 refers only to “manufacturing techniques and road map 

to improvement” and “manufacturing sequences, and methods.” This disclosure does not identify 

what techniques, improvements, sequences or methods are claimed. Trade Secrets 2, 3, 16 and 22 

suffer from similar problems, which must be addressed in an amended disclosure.

On the other hand, some of the other alleged trade secrets may be sufficiently particular, so 

long as Alta Devices reformulates the trade secrets to make clear what is claimed. See discussion 

of “narrative” v. “list” above. For example, Trade Secret 10a is described as “————————

———————————————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————.” If Alta Devices contends that 

this trade secret comprises benchmarks for —————————--, and that the benchmark is the 

secret information from which Alta Devices derives commercial value, it must so state. A 

sufficient disclosure might look something like this:

• ————————————————————-

• —————————————————————

• ———————————————

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 7 of 10
8

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

Conversely, if Alta Devices contends that the trade secret instead comprises some feature or 

features of its technology that permits it to achieve these benchmarks, then Alta Devices must 

disclose what that feature or features of the underlying technology is, and not just the benchmarks 

that it can achieve.3 Trade Secrets 10, 10b, 10c, 15, 25, 26, 32, 36b and 39 have deficiencies 

similar to those in Trade Secret 10a and require amendment.

Trade Secrets 19, 21, 24 and 52 also relate to Alta Devices’ manufacturing processes, but 

these alleged trade secrets raise additional issues. Trade Secret 19 is described as “——————

——————————-.” LGE objects that this purported trade secret is vague because it does 

not clearly state at what temperature or for what duration ————————————-. This 

objection is well-taken. In reformulating this trade secret as an item on a list, Alta Devices should 

also ensure that the disclosure describes with reasonable particularity the parameters of the trade 

secret claimed. 

Trade Secret 21 purports to describe a relationship between the speed of deposition of 

GaAs film and other factors: “———————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————.” LGE objects that 

this relationship is not sufficiently defined. In reformulating this trade secret as an item on a list, 

Alta Devices should consider whether the claimed trade secret is a particular, mathematical 

relationship or simply a functional relationship, and revise its disclosure accordingly.

As currently drafted, Trade Secret 24 states: “——————————————————

———————————————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————————————

——————————.” When reformulated as an item on list, Trade Secret 24 should identify 

the “processes” to which Alta Devices refers, but otherwise might require little additional 

amendment.

Finally, Trade Secret 52 purports to describe a “process flow.” LGE objects that the steps 

of the process flow are indicated by undefined abbreviations. Alta Devices should address this 

 

3 The Court does not decide whether, as Alta Devices contends, “benchmarks” such as these 

qualify as trade secrets. That is a question on the merits.

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 8 of 10
9

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

objection in an amended disclosure that makes clear what each step of the claimed process flow is. 

Otherwise, this trade secret does not require amendment.

F. Compositions

LGE objects that Trade Secrets 53 and 54 purport to claim certain “compositions” as trade 

secrets but they do not disclose what the compositions are. Alta Devices contends that because the 

trade secrets refer to the composition of particular components of its technology, namely, ———

———————————————————, they are described with reasonable particularity.

The Court agrees with LGE that Alta Devices’ current disclosures are not sufficient to put 

LGE on notice of what trade secrets are at issue. If Alta Devices contends that the entire 

composition of ———————————————————-- and the entire composition of its 

———-- are trade secrets, then it must so state and it must identify those compositions in a 

manner that distinguishes them from what is already known. If, on the other hand, Alta Devices 

contends that its claimed compositions contain particular ingredients or combinations of 

ingredients that distinguish them from known compositions, it should so state. 

In any event, Alta Devices must amend its disclosure to more particularly describe the 

composition trade secrets.

G. Apparatus Design and Deposition Technology

LGE objects to Trade Secrets 11, 20, 23, 28, 30, 31, 33, 36a, 37 and 56 on the ground that 

they are not sufficiently described in a manner that distinguishes them from what is already 

known. Alta Devices responds that C.C.P. § 2019.210 does not require it to explain how the 

claimed trade secrets differ from what already is known.

The Court agrees with Alta Devices that it need not prove its case on the merits to satisfy 

the reasonable particularity standard. However, Alta Devices does have an obligation to identify 

with reasonable particularity what the claimed trade secret is so that LGE may investigate whether 

the claimed trade secret is already known. 

For these trade secrets, it is difficult to discern what is claimed. For example, Trade Secret 

11 states: “——————————————————————————————————

———————————————————————--” It is not clear whether Alta Devices’ 

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 9 of 10
10

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

trade secret is the entire design of a ———————--, or specifically ———————————

————————————, or more specifically ——————————————————

—————————-. Each of these trade secrets suffers from a similar lack of clarity about 

what is claimed.

Alta Devices must amend its disclosure to make clear what it claims each trade secret is.

H. Business Information and Metrics

LGE objects to Trade Secrets 3, 4, 4a and 55 on the ground that, as drafted, none describe 

any confidential business information that differs from what is already known. Alta Devices 

responds that these alleged trade secrets concern information that is both confidential and 

competitively valuable. 

While Alta Devices is correct that confidential business information may constitute a trade 

secret, it also acknowledges that, as currently drafted, Trade Secrets 3, 4 and 4a are not 

confidential. In addition, each of these trade secrets and trade secret 55 refers to documents 

separate from and cited in Alta Devices’ trade secrets disclosure. 

The Court expects that once these trade secrets are reformulated and amended as directed 

above, the deficiencies LGE notes may be addressed.

IV. CONCLUSION

LGE’s motion to compel is granted. No later than January 25, 2019, Alta Devices shall 

serve on LGE an amended Trade Secrets Identification that addresses the deficiencies the Court 

discusses above. In the future, if Alta Devices wishes to make further substantive amendments to 

its Trade Secrets Identification beyond the amendments compelled by the present order, Alta 

Devices must first seek leave of Court, absent the parties’ mutual agreement to the proposed 

amendment(s).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-00404-LHK Document 86 Filed 01/10/19 Page 10 of 10