§Why CasetextPricing

Motion Protective Order

undefined

14 Cited authorities

  1. Imax Corp. v. Cinema Technologies, Inc.

    152 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 190 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that trade-secret claimant failed to identify allegedly secret information about patented projector system undisclosed by patent

  2. Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp.

    110 Cal.App.4th 1658 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 143 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that once a party "produces evidence sufficient to make its prima facie case, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the other party to refute the prima facie case"

  3. IDX Systems Corp. v. Epic Systems Corp.

    285 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2002)   Cited 144 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the appearance of data entry screens" are not trade secrets

  4. Advanced Modular Sputtering v. Superior Court

    132 Cal.App.4th 826 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 73 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that one of the purpose of the CCP §2019.210 disclosure is that "it enables defendants to form complete and well-reasoned defenses, ensuring that they need not wait until the eve of trial to effectively defend against charges of trade secret misappropriation"

  5. Attia v. Google LLC

    983 F.3d 420 (9th Cir. 2020)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that Google's patent applications extinguished Attia's claims under the DTSA because "it appears to us to be well-settled that publication of information in a patent application eliminates any trade secrecy"

  6. Perlan Therapeutics Inc. v. Superior Court (NexBio, Inc.)

    178 Cal.App.4th 1333 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 32 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff 'is not entitled to include broad, 'catch-all' language" in his trade secret identifications, because if it "does not know what its own trade secrets are, it has no basis for suggesting defendants misappropriated them"

  7. Loop AI Labs Inc. v. Gatti

    195 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2016)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "identifying documents alone would not be an adequate substitution for detailed identification of the trade secrets therein"

  8. Soc. Apps, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.

    Case No.: 4:11-CV-04910 YGR (N.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2012)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 2019.210 did apply

  9. Qpid.me, Inc. v. Schrom

    CASE NO. 13-cv-583-IEG(NLS) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    CASE NO. 13-cv-583-IEG(NLS) 2013-09-09 QPID.ME, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHN SCHROM, Defendant. IRMA E. GONZALEZ ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT JOHN SCHROM'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT JOHN SCHROM'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE [Doc. No. 9] On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff Qpid.me, Inc. commenced this diversity action against its former employee Defendant John Schrom, alleging, inter alia, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and fraud. Presently

  10. VIA Techs., Inc. v. Asus Computer Int'l

    Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016)

    Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF 03-17-2016 VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants. PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO COMPEL (Re: Docket No. 117) This case centers on the alleged theft of circuit designs for USB chips. Plaintiffs VIA Technologies, Inc. and VIA Labs, Inc. claim that VIA's direct competitors, Defendants ASUS Computer International, ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASMedia

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 365,903 times   967 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 2019.210 - Action alleging misappropriation of trade secret

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210   Cited 146 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Requiring party alleging misappropriation to identify trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery

  13. Section 2031.060 - Motion for protective order

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.060   Cited 23 times

    (a) When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted

  14. Section 2030.090 - Motion for protective order

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.090   Cited 23 times
    Listing grounds for a protective order, including "unwarranted annoyance" and "undue burden and expense"