Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01515/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01515-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Bracikowski
Defendant
Enerpac Tool Group Corp.
Defendant
Thad Hales
Defendant
Tri Tool, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRI TOOL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THAD HALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(ECF No. 69)

Plaintiff Tri Tool, Inc. moves to compel Defendant Enerpac Tool Group Corp.

(“Enerpac”)1 to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents.

2 Pl. Mot. 

Compel (ECF No. 69). Pursuant to Local Rule 251(a), the parties filed a notice of motion 

compelling discovery concurrently with their Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(a); ECF No. 69. On December 17, 2024, the Court held an inperson hearing. Attorney Philip Chan appeared for Plaintiff, and attorney James Carter 

appeared for Defendant Enerpac. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN 

PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

/ / /

1 There are three Defendants in this case: Thad Hales, Mike Bracikowski, and Enerpac 

Tool Group Corp. Only Defendant Enerpac is the subject of this motion to compel.

2 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(1).

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 14
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

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Plaintiff filed its complaint on August 29, 2022, which raised the following claims: 

(1) misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”)

against all Defendants; (2) intentional interference with prospective economic relations 

against all Defendants; (3) breach of contract against Defendants Hales and 

Bracikowski; (4) breach of the duty of loyalty against Defendants Hales and Bracikowski;

(5) violation of Penal Code § 496 against all Defendants; and (5) unfair competition 

under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. against all 

Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that two of its former employees, Defendants 

Hales and Bracikowski, took hard drives from two computers and copied files onto an 

external hard drive, and then went to work for Defendant Enerpac. Joint Statement (ECF 

No. 69-1 at 2). Defendants Hales and Bracikowski previously worked in Plaintiff’s on-site 

services, product sales, and equipment rentals department. Id. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants Hales and Bracikowski used this stolen information to benefit Defendant 

Enerpac and harm Plaintiff, and that Defendant Enerpac is benefitting from Plaintiff’s 

trade secrets. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Hales and Bracikowski solicited 

Plaintiff’s clients using this information. Id. After learning about the lawsuit, Defendant 

Enerpac fired Defendants Hales and Bracikowski. Id. Plaintiff identified a loss of sales 

revenue for eleven accounts that it attributes to the information from the stolen hard 

drives. Id. Defendant Enerpac alleges that these accounts are not connected to 

Plaintiff’s trade secret claim. Id.

On October 30, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Enerpac’s motion to dismiss 

in part, granting the motion with leave to amend regarding Plaintiff’s claims of unfair 

competition under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.; 

intentional interference with prospective economic relations; breach of contract; breach 

of duty of loyalty; and violation of California Penal Code § 496(c). 10/27/2023 Order 

(ECF No. 28). The Court denied Defendant Enerpac’s motion to dismiss regarding 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 14
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

3

Plaintiff’s claim of misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836. 

Id. Plaintiff’s filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on November 9, 2023, asserting all 

the same causes of action except for the violation of the California Penal Code against 

all Defendants. (ECF No. 29). On August 16, 2024, Defendant Enerpac filed a document 

labeled as a “motion to strike” Plaintiff’s FAC. Def. Mot. to Strike (ECF No. 54). However, 

this is actually a motion to dismiss portions of Plaintiff’s FAC. (See id.) Defendant 

Enerpac is moving to dismiss Plaintiff’s second and fifth causes of action for intentional 

interference with prospective economic relations and unfair competition under California 

Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. as either preempted under the 

California Uniform Trade Secret Act (“CUTSA”) or for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. 

(See id. at 11.) This motion is currently pending before the District Judge.

B. Events Relevant to the Discovery Dispute

On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff served discovery on Defendant Enerpac, seeking 

information on the eleven accounts Plaintiff identified as losing sales. Joint Statement at 

3. Defendant Enerpac objected to the discovery and refused to provide any information. 

Id. On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of motion and motion to compel with the 

Court. Id.; ECF No. 26; see ECF No. 30. On November 29, 2023, the Court granted this

motion to compel in part. 11/29/2023 Order (ECF No. 34). From the information learned 

through this discovery, Plaintiff served requests for production of documents (RFPs) Set 

Three on Defendant Enerpac that were tailored to five of the original eleven accounts. 

Joint Statement at 3. Defendant Enerpac agreed to some of the RFPs but objected to 

others. Id.at 4. 

On May 1, 2024, the parties met and conferred to discuss Defendant Enerpac’s 

responses. Id. In response to Defendant Enerpac’s concerns about producing 

information about a market segment in which it does not compete with Plaintiff, Plaintiff 

agreed to identify applicable market segments for each customer. Id. On May 13, 2024, 

Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant Enerpac’s counsel memorializing the discussions 

and requested supplemental responses from Defendant Enerpac by May 24, 2024. Id.

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 14
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

4

On May 29, 2024, Defendant Enerpac’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel refusing to 

provide supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s narrowed requests and stating that the 

narrowed requests did not accurately reflect the parties’ prior discussion. Id. at 5. 

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Enerpac to 

produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s RFPs Set Three. See Pl. Mot. Compel. 

Prior to filing the motion, Plaintiff requested to seal portions of the documents. (ECF No. 

65.) The Court granted in part the request to seal. (ECF No. 68.)

C. Requests for Production at Issue

Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Numbers 8-18 are at issue, and are 

reproduced here. Declaration of Dylan W. Wiseman, Exh. 1 (ECF No. 69-2 at 6-8).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

Please produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR pricing for 

each of YOUR services and products that YOU performed or sold to the 

following companies from 2018 to the present (as identified in YOUR 

supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special 

Interrogatories dated December 20, 2023): [company names sealed]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:

Please produce all COMMUNICATIONS between Defendant Thad 

Hales and the following companies: [company names sealed]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:

Please produce all COMMUNICATIONS between Defendant Mike 

Bracikowski and the following companies: [company names sealed]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:

Please produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any of YOUR 

pricing variances for YOUR services and products performed for or sold to 

the following companies from 2018 to the present: [company names 

sealed]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:

Please produce all of YOUR invoices (which show YOUR pricing) 

for YOUR services and products performed for or sold to the following 

companies from 2018 to the present: [company names sealed]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:

Please produce all credit checks and/or reports initiated by YOU for 

the following companies from 2018 to the present: [company names 

sealed]

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 4 of 14
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

5

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:

Please produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any commissions 

attributable to Defendant Thad Hales’s work performed for YOU or on 

YOUR behalf.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:

Please produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any commissions 

attributable to Defendant Mike Bracikowski’s work performed for YOU or on 

YOUR behalf.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:

Please produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any assignment of 

the accounts or clients with which Defendant Thad Hales worked.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

Please produce all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any assignment of 

the accounts or clients with which Defendant Mike Bracikowski worked.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:

Please produce all DOCUMENTS YOU relied upon to prepare 

YOUR December 20, 2023 Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Tri Tool, 

Inc.’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 

to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(1). “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery.” 

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

A party may serve requests to produce documents in the responding party's 

possession, custody, or control, including designated documents, electronically stored 

information, or other writings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). A requesting party is entitled to 

production of documents within a responding party's possession, custody, or control, 

regardless of whether the requesting party possesses the same documents. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 34(a). The responding party must respond in writing within thirty (30) days, unless 

otherwise agreed upon or ordered, after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). If a 

responding party objects, the objection “must state whether any responsive materials are 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 5 of 14
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

6

being withheld on the basis of that objection[, and] an objection to part of a request must 

specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).

A party may move to compel discovery if the movant has in good faith conferred 

with the party opposing discovery to obtain the requested discovery without the court's 

intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The moving party bears the burden to “inform 

the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, for 

each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding 

party's objections are not meritorious.” Adams v. Yates, 2013 WL 5924983, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Nov. 1, 2013). Local Rule 251 governs motions to compel and requires the parties 

to confer and attempt to resolve their discovery differences. 

If a court grants the motion to compel, then the court must order the party “whose 

conduct necessitated the motion . . . to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred 

in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The court 

must not award expenses if “the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith 

to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action”; “the opposing party's 

nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified”; or “other 

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii).

The burden is on the losing party to prove that its position was substantially justified. See

R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 673 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 2012). 

III. DISCUSSION

The FAC raises the following claims: (1) misappropriation of trade secrets under 

the DTSA against all Defendants; (2) intentional interference with prospective economic 

relations against all Defendants; (3) breach of contract against Defendants Hales and 

Bracikowski; (4) breach of the duty of loyalty against Defendants Hales and Bracikowski; 

and (5) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et 

seq. against all Defendants.

“The discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely unsupervised 

by the district court. But when required disclosures aren’t made or cooperation breaks 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 6 of 14
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

7

down, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a party to move for an order compelling 

disclosures or discovery.” Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 

2018). 

A. Trade Secret Designation

Defendant Enerpac argues that Plaintiff has not identified its trade secrets with 

“reasonable particularity” under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 as 

required to commence discovery. Joint Statement at 11. In denying Defendant Enerpac’s 

motion to dismiss the DTSA claim, the Court found that Plaintiff sufficiently stated a trade 

secrets misappropriation claim under the DTSA. See 10/27/2023 Order at 6-16; see also 

Skye Orthobiologics, LLC v. CTM Biomedical, LLC, 2021 WL 6102432, at * 8 (C.D. Cal. 

Aug. 27, 2021) (denying defendants’ request for discovery sequencing in part because 

plaintiffs sufficiently pled their trade secrets in their complaint). The Court also noted in 

its order that Plaintiff only brings its trade secret claim under the DTSA, not under the 

California Uniform Trade Secret Act. See 10/27/2023 Order at 16.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 provides that:

In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the 

Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Title 5 (commencing with Section 3426) of Part 

1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code), 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 [California] Civil Code.

However, the DTSA does not have this same sequencing requirement. Picture Shop, 

LLC v. Shaw Inc., 2024 WL 2106747, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2024) (citing Blockchain 

Innovation, LLC v. Franklin Res., Inc., 2023 WL 4045234, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 

2023)). “DTSA is intended to provide a single, national standard for trade secret 

misappropriation with clear rules and predictability for everyone involved.” Blockchain, 

2023 WL 4045234, at *1 (quoting Adams Arms, LLC v. Unified Weapon Sys., 2016 WL 

5391394, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2016)). “In furtherance of its aim to establish a 

uniform federal scheme for trade secret litigation, DTSA is notable for what it does not 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 7 of 14
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

8

require.” Id. (quoting Yeiser Research & Dev., LLC v. Teknor Apex Co., 2019 WL 

2177658, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2019)). The DTSA does not require a heightened 

pleading standard, “[n]or do DTSA's express provisions regarding civil proceedings 

incorporate any discovery procedure analogous to certain state law statutory 

requirements in trade secrets cases that require a plaintiff to first disclose trade secrets 

before being able to receive discovery from the defendant.” Yeiser, 2019 WL 2177658, 

at *4.

Courts have observed that the absence of such requirements “support[s] the 

inference that a plaintiff whose DTSA claims proceed past the pleading stage is entitled 

to discovery in accordance with the general discovery rules set forth in Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26.” Blockchain, 2023 WL 4045234, at *1 (quoting Yeiser, 2019 WL 

2177658, at *4); see also Skye Orthobiologics, LLC, 2021 WL 6102432, at *7. “Under 

Rule 26, ‘[u]nless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise . . . discovery by one 

party does not require any other party to delay its discovery,’ Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 

26(d)(3)(B), meaning that [waiting to engage in discovery about trade secrets until the 

trade secrets are disclosed] is presumptively barred.” Blockchain, 2023 WL 4045234, 

at *1.

Here, Plaintiff has not brought a claim under the California Uniform Trade Secret 

Act. See FAC. Rather, Plaintiff alleges a trade secret violation under DTSA, a federal 

statute. Id. The plain language of CCP § 2019.210 limits its applicability to claims 

brought under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act. Picture Shop, 2024 WL 2106747, 

at *2-3. While Plaintiff states they have provided a statement under section 2019.210, 

this is not required. At the hearing, Defendant conceded that they did not cite any legal 

authority demonstrating that a party is required to comply CCP § 2019.210 when the 

party only brings a DTSA claim, and not a California Uniform Trade Secret Act claim.

The Court therefore turns to whether Plaintiff has sufficiently identified its trade 

secrets under the DTSA. Under DTSA, a plaintiff must “describe the subject matter of the 

trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general knowledge 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 8 of 14
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

9

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.” Vendavo, 

Inc. v. Price f(x) AG, 2018 WL 1456697, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) (citation 

omitted). In denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the trade secrets misappropriation 

claim under the DTSA, the district court already held that Plaintiff sufficiently identified its 

trade secrets in the Complaint. 10/27/2023 Order at 6-16. Where Plaintiff’s allegations of 

its trade secrets in the FAC are substantially similar to its allegations in the Complaint 

that were already held to be sufficiently pled, see FAC and 10/27/2023 Order at 6-16, 

Plaintiff has sufficiently identified its trade secrets under the DTSA.

B. Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 8-18

The Court first addresses general arguments before turning to the individual RFPs 

at issue.

1. Timing of Discovery

Defendant Enerpac objects to RFP Nos. 8-18 as premature pending the outcome 

of its motion to dismiss and the entry of a scheduling order. While the parties may agree 

before the entry of a scheduling order to delay discovery, Plaintiff’s discovery requests in 

this action are not premature because there is no claim that the parties have not 

conducted their required Rule 26(f) conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In addition, 

this action was filed in August 2022, and there has already been significant motion 

practice in this case, including a motion to compel filed in October 2023 (ECF No. 26). 

2. Date Range

Defendant Enerpac objects to RFP Nos. 8-18 on the grounds that the 2018 to 

present date range is overbroad. While this date range aligns with the Court’s prior 

discovery order regarding Plaintiff’s interrogatories, which granted discovery from 2018 

to the present, see 11/29/2023 Order, the Court modifies the date range for production 

of documents by Enerpac based on the arguments provided at the hearing. At the 

hearing, Plaintiff confirmed that the FAC’s allegations of misconduct begin in August 

2021 and argued that the production of documents before this time period was relevant 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 9 of 14
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

10

to determine whether Defendant Enerpac’s conduct changed after the alleged 

misconduct by comparing information before August 2021. Plaintiff agreed that a 

limitation to documents from January 1, 2020, rather than from 2018, was a reasonable 

modification of its request. The Court therefore orders that to the extent a date range is 

provided in Plaintiff’s RFPs (see RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, and 13), the date range is modified 

to require production of documents from January 1, 2020 to the present.

3. Privilege

Defendant also objects to RFP Nos. 8-18 on the grounds that responses would 

include confidential information, attorney work product, and information protected by 

attorney client privilege. Objections on the basis of trade secret and privacy do not 

completely bar discovery of protected material, however a balancing between the needs 

of the party seeking discovery with the burden of production is required. Kitsinian v. 

Manoukian, 2018 WL 6265004, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018) (citing Soto v. City of 

Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 606 (N.D. Cal. 1995)). The parties have a stipulated protective 

order in place that includes “attorneys’ eyes only” provisions (ECF No. 22), which can 

mitigate any privacy concerns about any information produced. See Kitsinian, 2018 WL 

6265004, at *6. To the extent Defendant Enerpac feels the responsive documents are 

protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, Defendant Enerpac 

should serve a privilege log with its responses. See id. The parties are reminded to meet 

and confer regarding privilege logs. Any objections to the RFPs on this ground is denied.

4. RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, 13: Pricing and Credit Checks

Overall, Plaintiff argues that its discovery requests narrowly focused on the five 

accounts whose business declined or disappeared around the time Defendants Hales 

and Bracikowski left the company. Joint Statement at 8. Plaintiff also argues that 

Defendant Hales admitted to using the stolen information for Defendant Enerpac’s 

benefit based on his failure to respond to Plaintiff’s RFAs. Id. at 3, 8. In its requests, 

Plaintiff is seeking information regarding whether Defendants Hales and Braikowski 

profited off of Plaintiff’s trade secrets and whether Defendant Enerpac continues to 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 10 of 14
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

11

profit. Id. Plaintiff further argues that the “pricing, pricing variances, and invoice 

documents” would demonstrate whether Defendant Enerpac used Plaintiff’s trade 

secrets to “usurp these customers.” Id. at 9.

Defendant Enerpac argues that RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, and 13 are overbroad 

because they seek “all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” Defendant Enerpac’s services 

and products for the five customers without any tailoring to misappropriation of trade 

secrets or claims in the complaint. Joint Statement at 12-13. Defendant Enerpac also 

argues that the RFPs will not lead to relevant evidence and are not proportionate to the 

needs of the case because there is no relationship between the customers and 

Defendants Hales and Bracikowski. Id. at 13. Further, Defendant Enerpac contends that 

it has a long standing relationships with the five customers, and most of the products 

rented or sold to these customers and services provided, are not competitive with 

Plaintiff. Id. at 13.

The Court finds RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, and 13 to be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. 

Plaintiff alleges a trade secret related to “costing and quoting for preparing bids.” Id. at 9.

Pricing and pricing variances are relevant to Plaintiff’s trade secret. The parties indicate 

in their Joint Statement, however, that these requests can be further modified to identify 

the applicable market segments for each customer to address Defendant Enerpac’s 

concerns that it would be producing documents about a market segment in which it does 

not compete with Plaintiff. Joint Statement at 3, 4. The Court concludes that this is a 

reasonable modification to tailor Plaintiff’s RFPs to its claims and the needs of this case. 

The Court orders Plaintiff to modify RFP Nos. 8, 11, and 12 to limit the time period from 

January 1, 2020 to the present and to identify applicable market segments in which it 

competes with Defendant. 

Regarding RFP No. 13, Plaintiff will modify RFP No. 13 to limit the time period 

from January 1, 2020 to the present and to clarify that if credit checks and/or reports 

initiated by Defendant Enerpac are broken out by market segment, Defendant is to 

produce the credit checks and/or reports for the applicable market segments in which 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 11 of 14
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

12

Plaintiff competes with Defendant.

5. RFP Nos. 9 and 10: Defendants Hales and Bracikowski

Communications

Defendant Enerpac argues that it responded to RFP Nos. 9 and 10 in a 

proportionate manner by providing all communications that Defendant Hales and 

Bracikowski sent to the five customers at issue. Joint Statement at 15. The Court rejects 

Defendant’s argument and holds that these requests are relevant and proportional to the 

needs of this case. At the hearing, Defendant conceded that Defendant Hales and 

Bracikowski were Enerpac employees for a brief period, beginning in approximately May 

2022 and ending in 2022 after this lawsuit was filed. This makes the universe of 

potentially responsive communications relatively small given Defendant Hales and 

Bracikowski’s short tenure at Enerpac. To the extent Defendant identifies 

communications that are responsive, but are not relevant to the claims and issues in this 

lawsuit, defense counsel will meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel to resolve the issue 

(e.g., provide sample emails to Plaintiff’s outside counsel under a Highly Confidential –

AEO designation, etc.). Defendant Enerpac is ordered to supplement its production and 

produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 9 and 10. 

6. RFP Nos. 14-17: Commissions and Account Assignments

Defendant Enerpac argues that RFP Nos. 14 through 17 seeking all 

“DOCUMENTS RELATING TO” commissions and assignment of accounts or clients for 

Defendants Hales and/or Bracikowski seek documents that are not related to whether 

they took or used Plaintiff’s trade secrets. Joint Statement at 14. Defendant Enerpac also 

objected on the ground that it had already told Plaintiff that there were no documents 

related to Defendants Hales and Bracikowski’s efforts to independently bring and secure 

new work for Defendant Enerpac. Wiseman Decl., Exh. 2 at 26, 27, 29, 30.

The Court holds that these requests are relevant and proportional to the needs of 

this case. Defendant Enerpac is ordered to respond to and produce documents 

responsive to RFP Nos. 14-17. If Defendant does not have responsive documents, their 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 12 of 14
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

13

response will so indicate. 

7. RFP No. 18: Documents for Supplemental Interrogatory 

Responses

RFP No. 18 seeks documents Defendant Enerpac relied on to prepare its 

December 20, 2023 Supplemental Reponses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special 

Interrogatories. Plaintiff agreed that if it sought such records, it would not object to 

Defendant Enerpac serving a similar RFP on Plaintiff and that Plaintiff would have to 

produce such documents. Defendant Enerpac likewise agreed that it would like to obtain 

such records when it serves discovery requests on Plaintiff. The Court therefore grants 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce documents responsive to RFP No. 18, 

and finds that this request is relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. If 

Defendant Enerpac serves a similar discovery request, Plaintiff will be required to 

produce responsive documents. 

C. Rule 37 Expenses

Both parties have requested monetary sanctions against the other pursuant to 

Rule 37. See Joint Statement at 10, 15-16. If a court grants a motion to compel in part,

the court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable 

expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). The Court finds sanctions are not 

appropriate for Plaintiff’s motion to compel. See HM Electronics, Inc. v. R.F. 

Technologies, Inc., 2014 WL 3014660, at *11 (S.D. Cal. July 3, 2014).

ORDER

As discussed above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff must modify RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, and 13 as described above. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Enerpac’s production of documents 

responsive to Plaintiff’s RFPs No. 8, 11, 12, and 13 is therefore GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Enerpac’s production of documents 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 13 of 14
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

14

responsive to Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 9-10, and 14-18 is GRANTED.

3. Within thirty (30) days of receiving Plaintiff’s modified RFP Nos. 8, 11, 12, and 

13, Defendant Enerpac shall produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s RFP 

Nos. 8 (modified), 9, 10, 11 (modified), 12 (modified), 13 (modified), and 14-

18.

Dated: December 23, 2024

5, trit.1515.24

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 74 Filed 12/23/24 Page 14 of 14