Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV00762, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00762    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery is DENIED.

            On 1/7/2022, Plaintiff Career Group, Inc. d/b/a SyndicateBleu (Plaintiff) filed suit against Facecake Marketing Technologies, Inc. (Defendant). On 1/10/2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) work, labor, and services; (3) account stated; and (4) open book account.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to its Requests for Production (RFP) and Special Interrogatories.

Discussion

            Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s responses to RFP No. 4 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 6-9 are deficient. More specifically, Plaintiff argues the further responses are warranted because:

1.      FaceCake agreed to produce all documents responsive to RFP No. 4, but the purportedly responsive documents belatedly produced are not in native format, are not reasonably usable, and are replete with improper redactions throughout;

2.      FaceCake did not substantively respond to Special Rog Nos. 6 and 7; and

3.      FaceCake’s exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 in its response to Special Rog No. 9 is unwarranted and/or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

In opposition, Defendant argues that it has provided all requested discovery and has only redacted that discovery which targets protected trade secrets. In particular, Defendant contends that the discovery targets its proprietary technology and client lists which constitute trade secrets.

In California, a trade secret is any information that: “(1) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (See Citizens of Humanity LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1, 12; Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1384, 1393.)

As for the technology, Defendant argues that “[t]he technology underpinning FaceCake’s artificial intelligence and augmented reality platform is trade secret and key to FaceCake’s intellectual property. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7.) Relevant here, FaceCake utilizes sophisticated software, methodology, processes, designs, and data to allow consumers to virtually try products on their own images in augmented reality, as if looking into a mirror, while providing relevant product recommendations for superior personalization and shopping experiences whether in-store, online, or in-ad. (Id.) Dissemination of this proprietary technology and FaceCake’s client list would unfairly provide significant economic value to FaceCake’s competitors because it would reveal the inner workings of FaceCake. (Smith Decl. ¶ 8.) Disclosure of FaceCake’s trade secrets and intellectual property would also allow FaceCake’s competitors to replicate features of FaceCake applications on other platforms and to target FaceCake’s clientele. (Smith Decl. ¶ 9.)” (Opp., 3: 13-15.)

As for the client list, Defendant argues that substantial efforts are taken to keep this information secret, including by requiring all newly hired and/or contractors to sign a confidentiality agreement. (Smith Decl. ¶ 13.) Defendant also argues that disclosure of the list would allow competitors to target its clientele. 

Together, Defendant argues that its overriding interest in its trade secrets would be substantially prejudiced if Defendant was ordered to comply with Plaintiff’s motion. In support, Defendant notes that Plaintiff is an employment agency that provides employee placement services. As such, Defendant’s proprietary information is not relevant to this breach of contract claim wherein Plaintiff seeks to recover amounts allegedly owed by Defendant for employment services rendered by Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendant notes that “[Defendant] has in good faith agreed to allow Career Group’s attorneys to inspect the unredacted documents, subject to certain limitations. (Miller Decl. ¶ 3.) Specifically, that the Parties enter into a stipulated protective order that the inspection occur by Career Group’s attorneys at [Defendant’s] headquarters in Calabasas, California, and that the reviewing attorney(s) execute a confidentiality agreement. (Id.)” (Opp., 2: 1-5.)

After consideration, the Court agrees with Defendant that it has an overriding interests in protecting its proprietary information. In light of Defendant’s agreement to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to inspect the unredacted documents at its headquarters pursuant to a protective order, the Court finds insufficient cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.