© Insider Narrative. All Rights Reserved.
Trade

Ninth Circuit Holds DTSA Does Not Apply CUTSA’s “Reasonable Particularity” Standard to Trade Secret Claims | CDF Labor Law LLP

This post was originally published on this site.

In a significant ruling, QUINTARA BIOSCIENCES, INC. V. RUIFENG BIZTECH, INC., No. 23-16093 (9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit distinguished the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) from California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”).

Defendants in trade secret cases frequently invoke CUTSA, CCP Section 2019.210, to stymy discovery until the plaintiff describes the misappropriated trade secrets with “reasonable particularity”. While DTSA does not provide a similar restriction, many Federal District Courts in California have applied the reasonable particularity standard to early discovery disputes and motions to dismiss or strike, especially in cases with both DTSA and CUTSA claims.

Case Background

Quintara and Biztech are DNA-sequencing-analysis companies that engaged in business together for six years. Things soured and Quintara claimed that Biztech locked Quintara out of its offices, took possession of Quintara’s equipment and hired all of Quintara’s employees. Quintara alleged that Biztech misappropriated trades secrets, including a customer database, customer profiles, its marketing plan, the design of potential new products, a vendor database, software code, customized reagents and protocols, new product designs, and DNA Donor technology.

District Court Holding

At the initial discovery conference, and at Biztech’s request with reference to CUTSA, the district court ordered Quintara to provide more details about the trade secrets before discovery could commence. After Quintara alleged additional details, Biztech moved to strike the trade secret claims for failure to meet the reasonable particularity standard, and the district court agreed, striking most of the trade secret claims. Following a loss at trial on the remaining claim, Quintara appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Ninth Circuit Holding

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion and concluded that there are significant differences between CUTSA and DTSA. Of import, DTSA only requires identification of a trade secret with sufficient particularity to survive summary judgment. Neither DTSA nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure restrict discovery until a “reasonable particularity” test is satisfied. The case was remanded back to the district court.

Lessons Learned

  1. DTSA Only Claim – While many plaintiffs wish to allege both DTSA and CUTSA claims in their complaints, of significance, Quintara’s counsel only sued under the DTSA, not CUTSA.
  2. Prepare to Go the Distance – Quintara martialed its resources and despite adverse rulings and trial result, persevered in its appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

If your business suffered from misappropriation of trade secrets or such a claim is being prosecuted against you, please contact Dan M. Forman, Chair of CDF’s Trade Secret Practice for a consultation.