N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANHEUSER -B USC H C O M PANIES, LLC ; ANHEUSER -B U SC H, LLC ,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. JAM ES ALAN C LAR

K, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-15591

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00415-TLN-C KD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Troy L. Nunle y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A, R

AW LINSON, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Jam e s C la

rk (C la rk) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r on re m and from this
c ourt, de ny ing C la

rk’ s m otion to strike

Pla intiffs’ Anhe use r-B u sc h C om pa nie s, LLC and Anhe use r-B usc h, LLC ’ s (c olle c tive l y Anhe use r-B usc h) c om pla int unde r 

# F IL ED M AR 20 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.the C a l ifornia anti-SLAPP 1 sta

tute . Se eAnhe use r-Busc h C ompanie s, LLC v . C lark , 622 F. App’ x 671 (9th C ir. 2015). W e have jurisdic tion unde r the c olla te ra l orde r doc trine , a

nd we a ffirm
. Se e Planne d Pare nthood Fe d’n of Am., Inc
. v . C t r. for Me d. Progre

ss , 890 F.3d 828, 832 (9th C ir. 2018). 1. The c om

pla int a lle ge d

tha t C la rk, a form e r e m

ploy e e , bre a c he d a
c onfide ntia lity

a g re e m e nt with Anheuse r-B usc h by obta ining a

nd disc losing a proprie ta ry doc um e nt re late d

to the c om

pa ny ’ s bre w ing proc e ss. This c ourt pre v iously

c onc lude d tha

t Anhe use r-B usc h “ sue d

C l ark for a c ts ta

ke n in furthe ran c e of a

prote c t e d a c tivity .” Anhe u se r-Busc h C ompanie s , 622 F. App’ x at 672 (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). W e now de c ide whe the r Anhe u se r-B usc h “ ha s e sta blishe d tha

t the re is a

proba bility tha t [it] will pre v a il” on its m isa ppropria tion of tra de se c re t s a

nd bre a c h of c ontra c t c la i m s. C a l. C i v. Proc
. C ode § 425.16(b)(1). 2. The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d C l ark’ s m otion to strike

Anhe use rB usc h’ s m i sa

ppropria tion of tra de se c re t s c la im s be c a use Anhe use r-B usc h de m onstra

te d a re a sona ble proba bility of pre v a iling on the

que stion of whe the r the
c onte nts of Pa ge 13 c o nstitute d a tra de se c re t. Se e Baral v . Sc hnitt , 376 P.3d 604,

1 Strate gic La

wsuit Aga inst Public Partic ipat ion. Se ePlanne d Pare nthood Fe d’n of Am., Inc . v . C

tr. for Me d. Progre

ss , 890 F.3d 828, 829 (9th C i r. 2018). 2617 (C a l. 2016) (e xpla ining tha t the pla i ntiff m

ust “ de m onstra

te tha t e a c h
c ha lle nge d c la im

ba se d on prote c te d a c tivity is le ga lly suffic ie nt a

nd fa c tua lly substa ntia te d” ). The distric t

c o urt c orre c tly

found tha

t the de c la

ration de sc ribing the c onte nts of Pa g e 13 did not c onta in ina dm issiblehe arsay for the purpose of
e sta blishing the

e x iste nc e of a

tra de se c re t. Se eFonse c a v . Sy sc o Food Sv cs. of Az., Inc
. , 374 F.3d 840, 846 (9th C ir. 2004) (disc ussing thea dm i ssibility of de c la rations). There c o rd a l so provide s a de quate support for thec o nc l usion tha t Anhe u se r-B usc h use d re a sona ble e fforts to m a inta in se c re c y , a nd de s c ribe d pote ntia l dam a ge s. Se eW h y tev . Sc hlage Loc k

C o. , 101 C a l. App. 4th 1443, 1454 (2002) (de sc ribing thete st for de te rm ining thee xiste n c e of a tra de se c re t). 3. The distric t c ourt a lso prope rly de nie d the m otion to strike Anhe use rB usc h’ s bre a c h of c o ntra c t c la im
. Se eC a l. C iv. Proc . C ode § 425.16(b)(1). A
re a s ona ble fa c t finde r c o uld c o nc lude tha t C l ark’ s re fusa l to c e rtify non-disc losure
wa s a bre a c h of the c onfide nt ia lity a gre e m e nts. Se e Oasis W
. Re alty , LLC v . Goldman , 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (C a l. 2011) (listing the e le m e nts for a bre a c h of
c ontra c t c la im ). Anhe use r-B usc h de sc ribe d suffic ie nt e vide nc e of dam a ge s, a nd the c ontra c ts we re not une nforc e a ble a s a ga inst publicpolic y . Se eHass v
. Rhody C o Prods. , 26 C a l. App. 5th 11, 31 (2018) (c a utioning tha

t the powe r to void

3a

c ontra c t a s in c ontra

ve ntion of sound public

polic y “ should be e xe rc ise d only in
c a se s fre e from

doubt” ) (c i t ation omi tte d). AFFIRM E D.

4