Plus One, LLC v. Capital Relocation Services L.L.C.

Background

Plus One, LLC sued Capital Relocation Services L.L.C. (which the opinion calls “CapRelo”) for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract, among other claims. The dispute in this order arose from CapRelo’s earlier motion to preclude Plus One from asserting new trade secrets.

The earlier motion concerned an amended trade-secret disclosure responding to Interrogatory No. 1, which asked Plus One to identify and describe each trade secret at issue. The court’s December 18, 2024 order precluded Plus One from asserting newly identified trade secrets that did not narrow or streamline its previously identified trade secrets and conflicted with the court’s description of Plus One’s earlier position.

The December 18 order did not discuss “Confidential Information,” Plus One’s breach-of-contract claim, or Interrogatory No. 2, which asked Plus One to identify and describe confidential information. On the evening of December 18, Plus One served an amended response stating that any precluded asserted trade secret was nonetheless confidential information responsive to Interrogatory No. 2.

Motion for Clarification

CapRelo moved to clarify whether the December 18 order also barred Plus One from using the precluded trade secrets as confidential information supporting its contract claim. The court explained that a clarification motion is meant to explain something vague or ambiguous, not to change an earlier order.

The court held that the December 18 order was clear and applied only to the newly identified trade secrets in the amended trade-secret disclosure served on November 12, 2024. CapRelo’s earlier motion had not mentioned confidential information, the breach-of-contract claim, or Interrogatory No. 2. The court therefore concluded that the scope of its earlier order was defined by the relief CapRelo had requested. The court denied the motion for clarification, stating that CapRelo’s request to preclude Plus One from using confidential information would instead attempt to alter or amend the earlier order.

Motion to Modify the Schedule

CapRelo also asked to modify the April 25, 2025 deadline for serving expert rebuttal reports. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court found good cause based on CapRelo’s claimed surprise about the inclusion of the precluded trade secrets in Plus One’s opening expert reports, CapRelo’s diligence in raising the issue, and the modest length of the requested extension.

The court granted the request to modify the scheduling order but granted only two additional weeks, rather than the three weeks requested. The deadline for serving expert rebuttal reports was extended to June 4, 2025. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about any other deadlines affected by the extension and submit a stipulation and proposed order.

Disposition

The court denied CapRelo’s motion as to clarification. It granted CapRelo’s request to modify the scheduling order and extended the expert rebuttal-report deadline to June 4, 2025.