Conor Tucker
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Trade Secret | Definition | Customer Lists
loanDepot.com, LLC v. Schneider, ___ F.Supp. 3d ___, No. 1:22-CV-06105, 2022 WL 17818550, at *4 (N.D. III. Dec. 20, 2022).
In a case involving former employees, the N.D. Illinois court looked to Illinois law to define whether customer information sufficiently qualified for trade secret protection under the DTSA. The court held that although the information itself is "basic contact information—specifically a customer's name, phone number, street address, and email address"—"the compilation of this information specific to loan customers...gives the information its economic value." The court entered a preliminary injunction against use of information downloaded by the former employees before they left.
Trade Secret | Pleading Sufficiency
Tirgari v. Kazemipour, No. 22-CV-541-CAB-DDL, 2022 WL 17724151, at *6 (S.D. CaI. Dec. 15, 2022).
The court dismissed (without leave to amend) claims under the DTSA for failure, in the complaint to "identify trade secrets with sufficient particularity." In particular, the court held that the plaintiff was required to provide a "description of tangible trade secret materials," and that merely reciting that app-related information such as "plans, methods, programs, engineering plans, applications, designs (written and photographic), and formulas" was not sufficient.
Amsted Rail Co., Inc. v. Hum Indus. Tech., Inc., No. 4:22-CV-00445-AGF, 2022 WL 15396386, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 27, 2022).
The court declined to dismiss claims under the DTSA where the complaint generally alleged the trade secrets, finding that there is "no specific requirement for particularity of trade secret allegations during the pleading stage." Sufficient allegations included "research and development" and various "algorithms and data." The court held that summary judgment was a better posture to address definition of trade secrets and the extent of overlap with public information.
LifeScience Techs., LLC v. Mercy Health, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, No. 4:21-CV-01279-SEP, 2022 WL 4547002, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2022).
The court acknowledged the growing split among district courts regarding the sufficient level of specificity,
[Page 32]
but held that a plaintiff "need not be held to a high degree of specificity in pleading its trade secrets." Quoting the Third Circuit's admonition that "require[ing] greater specificity would run the risk of ignoring 'the challenges a trade...
