Managing trade-secret discovery is often referred to as “delicate problem.” Quintara Biosciences Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech Inc., 149 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2025).

How can plaintiffs plead, discover, and prove whether a trade secret has been misappropriated without giving away the trade secret? On the other hand, how can defendants respond to discovery without giving away their own trade secrets? Requiring too much disclosure too early could encourage fishing expeditions. Requiring too little disclosure too late could prevent the parties from proving or defending their claims. All civil discovery presents these concerns, but they are especially acute in trade-secret cases.

The Ninth Circuit in Quintara stated that the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) does not set out requirements for the specific timing or scope for identifying trade secrets, and that the conventional procedures under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, namely, Rule 12(f) nor Rule 16, do not authorize striking and functionally dismissing trade secret claims at the pleading stage.

The Fourth Circuit, however, held that trade secrets must be identified with “sufficient particularity” by the plaintiff at the pleading stage, so that “a defendant [can] delineate that which he is accused of misappropriating.” Sysco Mach. Corp. v. DCS USA Corp., 143 F.4th 222, 228 (4th Cir. 2025) (citing DTSA). Requiring sufficient particularity at the outset enables the court “to determine whether the plaintiff has plausibly satisfied the reasonable secrecy and independent economic value requirements” of the DTSA. Id. “Neither the defendant nor the court should be forced into a fishing expedition to find evidence of a valid trade secret in the pleadings.” Id.

While the Fourth Circuit stated that the applicable state and federal trade secret statutes had substantially the same terms, the Ninth Circuit instead relied on the differences between state and federal laws. Notably, the California trade secrets law was not asserted in Quintara.