�鶹ֱ��

In a recent decision, Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech Inc., No. 23-16093, 2025 WL 2315671 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2025), the Ninth Circuit found that a plaintiff bringing claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) need not identify their trade secrets with particularity before beginning discovery. 

This marks a departure from what many District Courts, especially those in California, have required since the DTSA was enacted.  Judges have used various theories to essentially apply the reasonable particularity requirement found in California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210, which requires a plaintiff to identify their alleged trade secrets with particularity before beginning discovery, to DTSA claims because it was an effective means of focusing discovery and more efficiently litigating what can be unwieldy cases.   

All hope is not lost for defendants, however, as the Ninth Circuit emphasized the other requirements embedded in the DTSA that require plaintiffs to identify their trade secrets; the panel also took particular issue with the District Court striking alleged trade secrets under Rule 12(f).  The decision, then, should be looked at in terms of the timing and vehicle used to define trade secrets in DTSA cases.  It does not provide license to plaintiffs to litigate ill-defined trade secrets—after all, a plaintiff should know what their own trade secrets are before suing.  

More details on the Quintara Biosciences case and its impact are provided below. 

In Quintara Biosciences v. Ruifeng Biztech, the District Court applied California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210’s “reasonable particularity” requirement and ordered the plaintiff to identify its alleged trade secrets with reasonable particularity before beginning discovery. When the defendants argued that the plaintiff had not met this requirement, the Court invited the defendants to move to strike the alleged trade secrets under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).  The defendants did, and the Court struck nine of the eleven alleged trade secrets (relying on Rule 12(f) and its power to manage the case and discovery under Rules 16 and 26), effectively dismissing them from the case.  The case proceeded through trial, and Quintara appealed.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision striking the nine alleged trade secrets, holding that Rule 12(f) did not authorize striking them and that treating the disclosure dispute as a basis for a dismissal sanction under Rules 16 and 26 was an abuse of discretion. Id., at *2. 

The Ninth Circuit emphasized that under the DTSA, whether a trade secret is identified with “sufficient particularity” is a question of fact typically resolved after targeted discovery at summary judgment or trial, and the district court erred in dismissing these trade secrets before the “opportunity for discovery that would allow the parties to refine and clarify the identification of alleged trade secrets at issue.” Id., at *8. The Ninth Circuit concluded that a lack of “reasonable particularity,” standing alone, does not constitute an extreme circumstance warranting dismissal of trade secret claims under Rules 26 or 16, and that Rule 12(f) likewise did not provide a proper basis for striking those claims. Id., at *2.

Implications 

1. Strategic Shift in Federal Trade Secret Litigation. The Ninth Circuit decision marks a practice shift for federal trade secret litigation. DTSA plaintiffs can now more easily resist state laws requiring trade secret disclosures prior to discovery, and defendants will need to recalibrate case management proposals and motion strategies. In addition, forum and claim selection will play a more significant role, as plaintiffs may file DTSA-only claims in federal court to avoid state law pre-discovery disclosure requirements, while defendants may prefer forums where those types of rules can be enforced.

2. Broader and More Costly Discovery. Without a comparable pre-discovery requirement in federal court, defendants will now likely be subject to broader discovery on both the existence and scope of alleged trade secrets, which will likely lead to more, and more expensive discovery.

3. Increased Flexibility for Plaintiffs to Revise Trade Secrets. Plaintiffs will be more likely to revise, expand upon, or add trade secrets and definitions during discovery. Plaintiffs now have greater room to refine and reframe their alleged trade secrets in response to what information is revealed during discovery, and may not be penalized for doing so.

4. Summary Judgment and Evidence Exclusion as Key Checks. Summary judgment and evidentiary exclusion will become the primary tools for challenging vague, overbroad, or shifting trade secret identifications. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that whether a trade secret is identified with “sufficient particularity” is a factual question that should be resolved after discovery, which will place a larger emphasis on creating a robust factual record to aid in limiting or defeating trade secret claims.

Recommendations

• Be strategic in forum and claim selection, as DTSA-only claims in federal court can now avoid pre-discovery disclosure requirements, whereas some state law claims will still require pre-discovery trade secret identification.  To the extent trade secret information is shared pursuant to a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement, you may address these issues in the contract.
• Consider phased or bifurcated discovery to address the existence, secrecy measures, and particularity of alleged trade secrets before broad merits discovery proceeds.
• Build a robust factual record early on to aid in limiting or defeating trade secret claims at the summary judgment stage.

For guidance on how the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could impact your current or anticipated trade secret matters, please reach out to any of the authors.