In California, trade secrets must be identified with "reasonable particularity" in a plaintiff's trade secret disclosure statement.

The California Court of Appeals recently ruled that the trial court did not err in deciding that a research company developing protein therapies for influenza was entitled to a protective order prohibiting discovery as a result of a plaintiff's failure to identify its purported trade secrets with reasonable particularity. The trial court found the plaintiff's trade secret statement did not identify its trade secrets with absolute precision, nor did it describe with a 'more exacting level of particularity' how its secrets differed from publicly available knowledge. Under California state law, a plaintiff seeking discovery in a misappropriation of trade secrets case must provide a trade secret disclosure statement, and that statement must identify the trade secrets with reasonable particularity.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2010