1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 PLINTRON TECHNOLOGIES USA CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00093 LLC, 11 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 12 COMPEL v. 13 JOSEPH PHILLIPS, RICHARD 14 PELLY, THOMAS MATHEW, GREG MCKERVEY, and DESIREE 15 MICHELLE GRAY, 16 Defendants. 17 JOSEPH PHILLIPS, 18 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 PLINTRON TECHNOLOGIES USA LLC, 21 Counterclaim Defendant. 22 23 24 1 INTRODUCTION 2 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Joseph Phillips, Richard Pelly, 3 Thomas Mathew, Greg McKervey, and Desiree Michelle Gray’s Motion to Compel Discovery 4 (Dkt. No. 90.) Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff Plintron Technologies USA LLC’s
5 opposition (Dkt. No. 120), Defendants’ reply (Dkt. No. 138), and all other supporting materials, 6 the Court GRANTS the Motion. 7 BACKGROUND 8 In the underlying litigation, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, all of whom are former 9 high-ranking Plintron employees, engaged in a wide range of improper conduct during and after 10 their employment. (See generally, Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) Among Plaintiff’s various causes of 11 action are a pair of trade secret misappropriation claims sounding in federal and state law. (Id. at 12 37–42 (citing Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.; Washington’s 13 Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) RCW § 19.108 et seq.).) 14 On September 9, 2024, Defendant Richard Pelly served Plaintiff with a set of discovery
15 requests, including a set of interrogatories seeking information related to Plaintiff’s trade secret 16 misappropriation claims. (Declaration of Jack Lovejoy (Dkt. No. 91) ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff served 17 its responses to those requests on October 16, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) Defendants now move for an 18 order compelling Plaintiff to “respond fully and with reasonable concrete specificity to 19 Defendants’ Interrogatories 1–4.” (Mot. at 14.) 20 ANALYSIS 21 A. Legal Standard 22 A plaintiff seeking relief for misappropriation of trade secrets “must identify the trade 23 secrets and carry the burden of showing that they exist.” Imax Corp. v. Cinema Techs., Inc., 152
24 1 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). This burden requires plaintiff to “describe 2 the subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of 3 general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge of those persons . . . skilled in the trade.” 4 Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). To meet the reasonable particularity standard, the
5 plaintiff must provide “a description of the trade secrets at issue that is sufficient to (a) put a 6 defendant on notice of the nature of the plaintiff’s claims and (b) enable the defendant to 7 determine the relevancy of any requested discovery concerning its trade secrets.” RealD Spark 8 LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:22-CV-00942-TL, 2023 WL 3304250, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 8, 9 2023) (citation omitted); see also Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. C21-0896, 2022 WL 10 17904317, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 23, 2022). 11 When a defendant seeks to dismiss a complaint which includes allegations of trade secret 12 misappropriation, the “plaintiff should not be compelled to divulge with specificity all of its 13 possible trade secrets . . . in order to proceed to discovery.” T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei 14 Device USA, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1193 (W.D. Wash. 2015). But when a case has
15 proceeded beyond the pleading stage, plaintiffs face a higher burden as the parties must “probe 16 the evidence that will be offered to prove or defend the case with an eye towards a possible 17 summary judgment motion and, eventually, trial.” RealD, 2023 WL 3304250, at *3. “Ultimately, 18 if trade secrets are not specifically identified, a court will not be able to determine whether they 19 have been misappropriated.” Id. (citing MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 20 522 (9th Cir. 1993)). 21 B. Motion to Compel 22 23
24 1 Defendants’ motion concerns Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories 1–4. (See Mot. at 2– 2 3.) The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 and then moves 3 Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2–4. 4 1. Interrogatory No. 1
5 Interrogatory No. 1 asks Plaintiff to “identify with reasonable particularity the 6 information or matter which [Plaintiff] claim[s] constitutes the trade secret” which Plaintiff has 7 alleged Defendants misappropriated. (Lovejoy Decl., Ex. 1 at 6.) Defendants argue that 8 Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 is deficient because it fails to identify which trade 9 secrets form the basis for the misappropriation claims alleged in the complaint. (Mot. at 9–11.) 10 The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 is readily deficient. Plaintiff’s 11 substantive response notes that it “conceives, designs, develops, and owns various trade secrets,” 12 and then provides a handful of such trade secrets as “merely examples of information that 13 Plintron USA utilizes for its operations.” (Lovejoy Decl., Ex. 2 at 17.) But this is nonresponsive 14 as to Defendants’ request, which sought Plaintiff’s identification of the specific trade secrets at
15 issue. Plaintiff cannot simply list trade secrets in its possession, rather it must identify specific 16 trade secrets in a manner sufficient to provide Defendants—and the Court—notice of which 17 trade secrets form the basis of Plaintiffs’ misappropriation claims. See RealD, 2023 WL 18 3304250, at *3. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to Interrogatory No. 1. 19 In Plaintiff’s response, they state that “information necessary to respond to this 20 Interrogatory fully and accurately beyond the response set forth above is in the possession of Mr. 21 Pelly, Defendants, or other third-parties.” (Lovejoy Decl., Ex. 2 at 18.) The Court finds that 22 Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that that Plaintiff now has access to (1) the Plintron 23 USA-issued computers of Defendants Pelly and Mathews’ computers; (2) the images of those
24 1 computers; and (3) at least one of the Plintron USA-issued devices used by Defendant Phillips 2 computers. (See Compl. ¶¶ 100–105 (detailing the status of Plintron-issued computers and other 3 devices); Reply at 4.) The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has obtained sufficient information 4 from Defendants needed to identify which—if any—trade secrets were misappropriated. The
5 onus is now on Plaintffs to promptly review the information they have collected from Defendants 6 and provide a specific identification as requested by Interrogatory No. 1. 7 Should Plaintiff fail to specifically identify which, if any, trade secrets form the basis of 8 its misappropriation allegations, the Court may be required to determine whether it has subject 9 matter jurisdiction over this dispute. The Court currently maintains subject matter jurisdiction 10 over this dispute by virtue of Plaintiff’s federal DTSA claim. (Compl. ¶ 18 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 11 1331).) The Court warns Plaintiff that failing to identify which, if any, trade secrets have been 12 allegedly misappropriated calls into question the propriety of its DTSA claim, and thus, the 13 Court’s jurisdiction to hear this dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 PLINTRON TECHNOLOGIES USA CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00093 LLC, 11 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 12 COMPEL v. 13 JOSEPH PHILLIPS, RICHARD 14 PELLY, THOMAS MATHEW, GREG MCKERVEY, and DESIREE 15 MICHELLE GRAY, 16 Defendants. 17 JOSEPH PHILLIPS, 18 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 PLINTRON TECHNOLOGIES USA LLC, 21 Counterclaim Defendant. 22 23 24 1 INTRODUCTION 2 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Joseph Phillips, Richard Pelly, 3 Thomas Mathew, Greg McKervey, and Desiree Michelle Gray’s Motion to Compel Discovery 4 (Dkt. No. 90.) Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff Plintron Technologies USA LLC’s
5 opposition (Dkt. No. 120), Defendants’ reply (Dkt. No. 138), and all other supporting materials, 6 the Court GRANTS the Motion. 7 BACKGROUND 8 In the underlying litigation, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, all of whom are former 9 high-ranking Plintron employees, engaged in a wide range of improper conduct during and after 10 their employment. (See generally, Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) Among Plaintiff’s various causes of 11 action are a pair of trade secret misappropriation claims sounding in federal and state law. (Id. at 12 37–42 (citing Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.; Washington’s 13 Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) RCW § 19.108 et seq.).) 14 On September 9, 2024, Defendant Richard Pelly served Plaintiff with a set of discovery
15 requests, including a set of interrogatories seeking information related to Plaintiff’s trade secret 16 misappropriation claims. (Declaration of Jack Lovejoy (Dkt. No. 91) ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff served 17 its responses to those requests on October 16, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) Defendants now move for an 18 order compelling Plaintiff to “respond fully and with reasonable concrete specificity to 19 Defendants’ Interrogatories 1–4.” (Mot. at 14.) 20 ANALYSIS 21 A. Legal Standard 22 A plaintiff seeking relief for misappropriation of trade secrets “must identify the trade 23 secrets and carry the burden of showing that they exist.” Imax Corp. v. Cinema Techs., Inc., 152
24 1 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). This burden requires plaintiff to “describe 2 the subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of 3 general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge of those persons . . . skilled in the trade.” 4 Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). To meet the reasonable particularity standard, the
5 plaintiff must provide “a description of the trade secrets at issue that is sufficient to (a) put a 6 defendant on notice of the nature of the plaintiff’s claims and (b) enable the defendant to 7 determine the relevancy of any requested discovery concerning its trade secrets.” RealD Spark 8 LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:22-CV-00942-TL, 2023 WL 3304250, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 8, 9 2023) (citation omitted); see also Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. C21-0896, 2022 WL 10 17904317, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 23, 2022). 11 When a defendant seeks to dismiss a complaint which includes allegations of trade secret 12 misappropriation, the “plaintiff should not be compelled to divulge with specificity all of its 13 possible trade secrets . . . in order to proceed to discovery.” T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei 14 Device USA, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1193 (W.D. Wash. 2015). But when a case has
15 proceeded beyond the pleading stage, plaintiffs face a higher burden as the parties must “probe 16 the evidence that will be offered to prove or defend the case with an eye towards a possible 17 summary judgment motion and, eventually, trial.” RealD, 2023 WL 3304250, at *3. “Ultimately, 18 if trade secrets are not specifically identified, a court will not be able to determine whether they 19 have been misappropriated.” Id. (citing MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 20 522 (9th Cir. 1993)). 21 B. Motion to Compel 22 23
24 1 Defendants’ motion concerns Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories 1–4. (See Mot. at 2– 2 3.) The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 and then moves 3 Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2–4. 4 1. Interrogatory No. 1
5 Interrogatory No. 1 asks Plaintiff to “identify with reasonable particularity the 6 information or matter which [Plaintiff] claim[s] constitutes the trade secret” which Plaintiff has 7 alleged Defendants misappropriated. (Lovejoy Decl., Ex. 1 at 6.) Defendants argue that 8 Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 is deficient because it fails to identify which trade 9 secrets form the basis for the misappropriation claims alleged in the complaint. (Mot. at 9–11.) 10 The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 is readily deficient. Plaintiff’s 11 substantive response notes that it “conceives, designs, develops, and owns various trade secrets,” 12 and then provides a handful of such trade secrets as “merely examples of information that 13 Plintron USA utilizes for its operations.” (Lovejoy Decl., Ex. 2 at 17.) But this is nonresponsive 14 as to Defendants’ request, which sought Plaintiff’s identification of the specific trade secrets at
15 issue. Plaintiff cannot simply list trade secrets in its possession, rather it must identify specific 16 trade secrets in a manner sufficient to provide Defendants—and the Court—notice of which 17 trade secrets form the basis of Plaintiffs’ misappropriation claims. See RealD, 2023 WL 18 3304250, at *3. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion as to Interrogatory No. 1. 19 In Plaintiff’s response, they state that “information necessary to respond to this 20 Interrogatory fully and accurately beyond the response set forth above is in the possession of Mr. 21 Pelly, Defendants, or other third-parties.” (Lovejoy Decl., Ex. 2 at 18.) The Court finds that 22 Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that that Plaintiff now has access to (1) the Plintron 23 USA-issued computers of Defendants Pelly and Mathews’ computers; (2) the images of those
24 1 computers; and (3) at least one of the Plintron USA-issued devices used by Defendant Phillips 2 computers. (See Compl. ¶¶ 100–105 (detailing the status of Plintron-issued computers and other 3 devices); Reply at 4.) The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has obtained sufficient information 4 from Defendants needed to identify which—if any—trade secrets were misappropriated. The
5 onus is now on Plaintffs to promptly review the information they have collected from Defendants 6 and provide a specific identification as requested by Interrogatory No. 1. 7 Should Plaintiff fail to specifically identify which, if any, trade secrets form the basis of 8 its misappropriation allegations, the Court may be required to determine whether it has subject 9 matter jurisdiction over this dispute. The Court currently maintains subject matter jurisdiction 10 over this dispute by virtue of Plaintiff’s federal DTSA claim. (Compl. ¶ 18 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 11 1331).) The Court warns Plaintiff that failing to identify which, if any, trade secrets have been 12 allegedly misappropriated calls into question the propriety of its DTSA claim, and thus, the 13 Court’s jurisdiction to hear this dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at 14 any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
15 C. Interrogatory Nos. 2–4. 16 Because Plaintiff failed to identify specific trade secrets in response to Interrogatory No. 17 1, its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2–4—all of which seek additional information regarding 18 those specific trade secrets—are also necessarily deficient and require supplementation. The 19 Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ Motion as to Interrogatory Nos. 2–4. 20 D. Defendants’ Discovery Obligations 21 Defendants ask the Court to relieve them of their obligation to provide confidential 22 information in discovery until Plaintiff has adequately responded to Interrogatory Nos. 1–4. 23 (Mot. at 14.) Defendants allege that without such relief, Plaintiff may use confidential
24 1 information to “build a case that some of that information in others’ hands is actually a Plintron 2 trade secret.” (Id.) The Court agrees and GRANTS the relief requested by Plaintiffs IN PART. 3 Until Plaintiff identifies which specific trade secrets form the basis of its misappropriation 4 claims, Defendants and third parties may withhold otherwise responsive confidential information
5 related to Plaintiff’s DTSA and UTSA claims. Outside of privilege concerns, Defendants and 6 third parties may not withhold otherwise responsive confidential information related to 7 Plaintiff’s remaining claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 8 CONCLUSION 9 Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. Within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiff must 10 supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1–4, addressing the deficiencies discussed above. 11 Until Plaintiff has served Defendants with the supplementary responses, Defendants and third 12 parties may withhold from discovery confidential information related to Plaintiff’s trade secret 13 misappropriation claims. 14 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
15 Dated March 21, 2025. A 16 17 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24