Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Tarantino

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 25, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05505
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., Case No. 20-cv-05505-EMC (LB)

12 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY ORDER 13 v. Re: ECF No. 46 14 DON TARANTINO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Author J. Gallagher & Co. is an insurance-brokerage firm that obtains insurance 19 policies for its clients from third-party insurance companies. A competitor, Alliant Insurance, 20 hired 15 Gallagher employees, including the four defendants. Gallagher alleged that the 21 defendants stole internal documents containing its trade secrets. It thus sued them for trade-secrets 22 misappropriation in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1832 and Cal. Civ. Code § 3426, among other claims.1 23 The parties disputed whether Gallagher identified its trade secrets with the reasonable 24 particularity required by California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Cal. Civ. Proc. § 25 26

27 1 Second Am. Compl. (SAC) – ECF No. 40 at 2 (¶ 8), 12–20 (¶¶ 46–94); Joint Case-Management Statement – ECF No. 35 at 3. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint ] 2019.210.? At the March 25, 2021 discovery hearing, the parties worked out the following 2 || compromise. 3 Gallagher disclosed three categories of trade secrets. But as it turned out, all categories are abot 4 || Gallagher’s compilations about current and former customers (roughly 350 to 375 customers) in th 5 form of customer contact lists and customer information that is not available publicly. The parties 6 || agreed at the hearing that this would serve as a sufficient identification of the trade secrets at issue. 7 || Given that the landscape of discovery is limited to those customers (and as discussed at the hearing 8 || this takes care of any concern that the disclosure is so broad that it prevents the defendants from 9 || effectively defending against the charges of trade-secret misappropriation. It also avoids the 10 || defendants’ concern that Gallagher’s discovery will be a means to obtain Alliant’s trade secrets. 11 || Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 833-34 (2005) (the purpo 12 || of § 2019.210 include (1) promoting well-investigated claims and dissuading meritless ones, (2) E 13 || preventing plaintiffs from using the discovery process as a means to obtain the defendant’s trade 14 || secrets, (3) assisting the court in managing the discovery process, and (4) enabling defendants to fc 3 15 || well-reasoned defenses and ensuring that they need not wait until the eve of trial effectively defend 16 || against charges of trade secret misappropriation). i 17 This resolves the dispute at ECF No. 46. Attached is the court’s order describing the court’s Z 18 || procedures for addressing future discovery disputes. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: March 25, 2021 LAE 21 22 LAUREL BEELER 73 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28 * Discovery Letter — ECF No. 46; Referral Order — ECF No. 47 (referring discovery disputes).