California Uniform Trade Secret Act (“CUTSA”)

Readers of this blog know that we frequently discuss the doctrine of preemption under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Information Act.  That is, a claim for trade secret misappropriation will preempt any other common law claims based on the “same nucleus of facts.”  However, a recent decision in Jobscience, Inc. v CVPartners, Inc., N.D.

A central issue in all trade secret litigation is the adequacy of a plaintiff’s pre-discovery disclosure of the alleged trade secrets required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210.  Section 2019.210 provides that a plaintiff suing for misappropriation of trade secrets must identify the alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity” before commencing discovery.  The

Readers of this blog will note our frequent reminders that preemption under California’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (“CUTSA”) can threaten other common law claims if not properly pled.  A recent decision out of the Eastern District of California in Hat World, Inc. v. Kelly, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113060 (Aug. 10, 2012) reinforces this position. 


It is sometimes difficult to distinguish arrogance or hubris from their close cousin, courage and perseverance. When a Court looks back over a plaintiff’s unsuccessful prosecution of a trade secret case for purposes of determining an award of attorney’s fees, that postmortem evaluation of the plaintiff’s case can make for some disturbing reading.

Recently, in