Ninth Circuit Relaxes Standard for Pleading Federal Trade Secrets Claims in California
4 min read
In California trade secrets cases, parties almost always fight about the scope of alleged trade secrets because a state statute requires identification of secrets “with reasonable particularity” before discovery. But in Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that a plaintiff need not meet this requirement to plead a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Acts (DTSA). As a result, federal trade secrets cases will become easier to bring and maintain in California.
Identifying Trade Secrets in California Courts
Trade secret plaintiffs can sue under the federal DTSA or California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA). However, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2019.210 requires that “before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity.”
Federal district courts in California have generally applied § 2019.210 to federal cases and DTSA claims, not just CUTSA claims. This has long made it harder to bring trade secrets cases in California than other states—early identification of trade secrets is disputed in almost every case and can delay or prolong discovery.
The Trade Secrets Dispute in Quintara v. Ruifeng
Quintara and Ruifeng are DNA-sequencing-analysis companies who collaborated until Ruifeng allegedly misappropriated multiple trade secrets. Quintara sued Ruifeng in N.D. Cal. in July 2020, pleading only DTSA claims, not CUTSA.1
After several early disputes about identifying trade secrets under § 2019.210, Quintara filed an amended a trade secret disclosure listing 11 alleged secrets. Ruifeng moved to strike those trade secrets under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The district court granted that motion, striking nine of the 11 secrets due to lack of “reasonable particularity” under § 2019.210.2 Accordingly, the district court did not just limit discovery for insufficiently disclosed trade secrets, it struck those secrets from the case completely.
The parties ultimately proceeded to trial on one trade secret, and Ruifeng won the jury verdict.
The Ninth Circuit Reverses
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court, ruling that the “reasonable particularity” standard does not support dismissing a DTSA claim.3 The appellate court reviewed the trade secret identification regimes under CUTSA and DTSA, noting that the DTSA requires “sufficient particularity,” which is a question of fact.4 The Ninth Circuit further distinguished the DTSA from CUTSA:
- “By its terms and unlike CUTSA, the federal DTSA does not require a plaintiff to identify with particularity its alleged trade secrets from the start.”5
- “And unlike CUTSA, DTSA does not set out requirements for the specific timing or scope for identifying trade secrets. Instead, the conventional procedures under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply.”6
Based on these distinctions, the Court found no basis for striking Quintara’s trade secrets. Rule 12(f) provided no authority for striking trade secrets altogether from the complaint. Rule 37’s discovery sanctions also did not apply to this situation, as the district court could have imposed lesser, appropriate sanctions such as a protective order against discovery, a later summary judgment ruling on the merits, or an adverse inference at trial based on insufficiently identified trade secrets. The Ninth Circuit noted that “a DTSA trade-secret claim will rarely be dismissible as a discovery sanction in a situation like this.”
In short, this appellate decision forecloses use of § 2019.210 to dismiss or strike a trade secret claim. However, the Court limited its decision: “Because this case presents only a DTSA claim, we do not address whether CUTSA’s disclosure rule is binding on federal courts considering CUTSA claims.”7
Key Takeaways
- Quintara makes it easier to plead federal trade secrets claims in California. Courts cannot use § 2019.210 to strike insufficient trade secret disclosures or dismiss entire trade secret claims based on lack of “reasonable particularity.”
- This will likely encourage more DTSA claims in California courts and discourage concurrent CUTSA claims. The Ninth Circuit expressly stated that “the federal DTSA does not require a plaintiff to identify with particularity its alleged trade secrets from the start.” Defendants might still rely on pre-existing case law to argue that plaintiffs must identify trade secrets early to obtain discovery.
- The Ninth Circuit avoided ruling on whether § 2019.210 applies to “federal courts considering CUTSA claims.” However, Quintara might prompt plaintiffs to challenge this discovery-gating issue in appropriate cases for appellate review.
1 Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-04808-WHA (N.D. Cal.) (Alsup, J.).
2 Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48399, *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2021).
3 No. 23-16093, slip op. (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2025).
4 Id. at 9 (citing InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653, 657-59 (9th Cir. 2020)).
5 Id. at 5.
6 Id. at 12.
7 Id. at 12 n.1
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2025 White & Case LLP
