One issue in trade secret litigation is whether a plaintiff has adequately identified the trade secrets it alleges were misappropriated. In California, a plaintiff alleging misappropriation of trade secrets must identify the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets with "reasonable particularity" before commencing discovery concerning the trade secrets claim.1 As a result, defendants often challenge a plaintiff's so-called California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 statement to force the plaintiff to better define the scope of the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets.

Last month, a California Court of Appeal provided further guidance on the degree of "particularity" for section 2019.210 statements. Brescia v. Angelin,2 involved a dispute over the formula and manufacturing process for high protein low carbohydrate pudding. The appellate court in Brescia reversed the trial court's determination that Brescia had inadequately described the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets and further reversed the trial court's ruling that erroneously dismissed Brescia's trade secret claim because of the purported section 2019.210 deficiencies.

Please see full ASAP for more information.