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

Everybody who cares probably knows that, in California, covenants not to compete (agreements that restrain an individual from pursuing a lawful trade of profession) are generally unenforceable.  There are only five “exceptions” to this rule.  I put “exceptions” in quotes because two of them really aren’t exceptions at all. They are independent legal doctrines that

The Cruel Lessons of Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. v. Keck  (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1151

By:      Charles L. Post

Defendants in trade secret and unfair competition cases often have fewer resources than the plaintiff companies that bring them.  This is often the case in “classic” trade secret misappropriation scenarios: former employees form a new

Courts are reluctant to protect customer lists when they consist of information from public sources (such as business directories).  (Morelife, Inc. v. Perry (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1514, 1521-1527.)  On the other hand, where the employer has expended time and effort identifying customers with particular needs or characteristics, courts will prohibit former employees from