Media & Insights
December 21, 2020
One medical group negotiated to buy another and then decided instead to hire the other’s staff. The would-be seller sued for misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant buyer. The Court of Appeal reversed with respect to one of the asserted trade secrets, clarifying some important principles for trade secrets litigation.
The court held that confidential firm-specific data may qualify as a trade secret even if it was generated using standard and well-known methods. The court also held that firm-wide productivity data can qualify for trade secret protection, even if individual employees have the right to disclose the portion of that firm-wide data relating to themselves.
With respect to plaintiff’s other asserted trade secret, the court affirmed summary adjudication for the defense because the plaintiff did not identify the secret with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery, as is required. The court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to seek leave to amend its identification after the summary judgment motion was filed, reasoning that the plaintiff cannot “wait until the defense has loosed its arrow at the bullseye, then move the target, and finally claim victory when the defense’s arrow misses the mark.”
