Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

M/A-COM Tech. Sols., Inc. v. Litrinium, Inc.

United States District Court for the Central District of California

June 11, 2019, Decided; June 11, 2019, Filed

SA CV 19-00220-JVS (JDEx)




On May 30, 2019, defendant Litrinium, Inc. ("Defendant") filed a Motion for Pretrial Pre-Discovery Disclosure of Trade Secrets by Plaintiffs M/A-COM Technology Solutions, Inc. and Mindspeed Technologies, S.A.S. ("Plaintiffs"), set for hearing on June 20, 2019 (Dkt. 45, "Motion"), with an accompanying Local Rule 37 Joint Stipulation (Dkt. 45-1, "Joint Stipulation" or "Jt. Stip.") and supporting and opposing evidence. On June [*2]  6, 2019, the parties filed supplemental memoranda, with a supporting declaration with exhibits also filed by Plaintiffs. Dkt. 50, 51, 51-1. The matter is now fully briefed. The Court finds the Motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 7-15.

The Motion seeks a protective order prohibiting "Plaintiffs from taking discovery related to their trade secret claims until after Plaintiffs have identified their asserted trade secrets with reasonable particularity." Motion at 2.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, in asserting a claim under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act ("CUTSA"), have not identified their trade secrets at issue with reasonable particularity; as a result, good cause exists for a protective order because: (1) it is required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 ( "Section 2019.210" or "§ 2019.210"), part of the CUTSA, noting the split of authority at the district court level and absence of binding circuit authority on whether Section 2019.210 applies in federal courts under the Erie doctrine (Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938)); and (2) such an order is appropriate under federal law considering he particular facts of this case, even if Section 2019.210 is not binding on this court. Jt. Stip. at 8-24.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argues that: (1) Defendant [*3]  has not met its burden for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c), arguing Section 2019.210 does not and should not apply in this court; (2) Plaintiffs have set forth their trade secrets with reasonable particularity; and (3) the discovery requests that Defendants seek to have stayed do not relate to Plaintiffs' trade secret claim. Jt. Stip. at 35-35, 37.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171453 *; 2019 WL 4284523

M/A-COM Technology Solutions, Inc., et al., v. Litrinium, Inc., et al.

Prior History: MACOM Tech. Sols., Inc. v. Litrinium, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167880 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2019)


trade secret, discovery, disclosures, reasonable particularity, allegations, misappropriation, parties, discovery request, motion to dismiss, customer, district court, particularity, supplemental, responses, products, cases