Source: https://www.hklaw.com/TradeSecretsBlog/Pre-Discovery-Trade-Secret-Identification-Under-The-DTSA-02-07-2019/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:45:32+00:00

Document:
A previous post on this blog (Nov. 20, 2018) analyzed state laws that require a plaintiff suing for trade secret misappropriation to identify its alleged trade secret(s) with particularity, before discovery begins. As discussed in that post, two states – California and Massachusetts – have enacted such a requirement by statute while many other states have created a similar requirement under common law. Those requirements govern trade secret claims under the laws of those states. This post expands upon that discussion and addresses whether there is a comparable requirement for misappropriation claims under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).
The DTSA does not address the issue of pre-discovery trade secret identification. But federal courts have analyzed the issue under the general principles of discovery in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and have identified competing policy considerations that inform the decision in a particular case.
Ultimately – whether before or after discovery -- the plaintiff must identify the alleged trade secret with enough specificity to put a defendant on notice of what is actually alleged to have been stolen, or else face summary judgment.4 The question of how detailed the identification of the trade secret must be is highly case-specific, as it is in state courts.
Accordingly, a federal court may require a plaintiff to make an early identification of the alleged trade secret. This identification should be carefully drafted together with the complaint, even if it is not included in the complaint, and be sufficient – both in detail and in breadth -- to support the misappropriation claim as the case proceeds, in the event that later amendments are not permitted. Finally, it goes (nearly) without saying that any description of a trade secret's substance should only be filed under seal.
1 See DeRubeis v. Witten Techs., Inc., 244 F.R.D. 676, 680-81 (N.D. Ga. 2007).
3 See JJ Plank Company, LLC v. Bowman, 2018 WL 3545319, at *2 (W.D. La. 2018); A&P Tech., Inc. v. Lariviere, 2017 WL 6606961, at *7 (S.D. Ohio 2017); StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Valentine, 2013 WL 9554563, at *2 (N.D. Tex. 2013).
4 See Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Krivda, 639 F. App'x 840, 845 (3d Cir. 2016); IDX Systems Corp. v. Epic Systems Corp., 285 F.3d 581, 583-84 (7th Cir. 2002).
5 Stoneeagle Services, Inc. v. Gillman, 2013 WL 12124328, at *3 (N.D. Tex. 2013).
6 Imax Corp. v. Cinema Technologies, Inc., 152 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 1998).
7 IDX Systems Corp. v. Epic Systems Corp., 285 F.3d at 584.
8 See Fast Food Gourmet, Inc. v. Little Lady Foods, Inc., 2007 WL 3052944 (N.D. Ill. 2007).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.