Evans v. Presidio Trust

Background

Robert Evans, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against Presidio Trust for alleged trade-secret misappropriation under the federal Defense of Trade Secrets Act and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Evans moved to proceed without paying the filing fee and later filed an amended complaint with a motion to seal documents that he said contained the trade secrets.

The court had previously denied Evans’s initial fee-waiver motion because the complaint did not describe the alleged trade secrets. It gave him an opportunity to amend by providing enough detail for the court to determine whether the alleged secrets were distinguishable from matters of general knowledge.

Motion to Proceed Without Paying the Filing Fee

The court applied the standard used to screen complaints filed by people who seek to proceed without paying filing fees. Under that standard, the complaint must contain enough factual information to state a plausible claim for relief. The court also construed Evans’s self-represented filing liberally, but it was not required to accept conclusory allegations or unsupported inferences.

The amended complaint remained almost identical to the original complaint. Although Evans added a paragraph referring to an exhibit, he stated that the description of the trade secrets was included in Exhibit 4. The exhibits together contained more than thirty pages of alleged trade secrets, but Evans still did not explain what the trade secrets were, and their subject matter was not apparent from the documents themselves.

The court concluded that Evans had not described the subject matter of the alleged trade secrets with enough particularity to identify their boundaries, give Presidio Trust adequate notice, or allow an assessment of whether they were different from generally known information. It found that the amended complaint still failed to state a claim for relief. The court therefore denied the motion to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the amended complaint.

Motion to Seal

Evans also sought to seal two documents that he said contained the trade secrets. Because the documents were connected to the substance of the case, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard, which requires specific reasons for secrecy that outweigh the public’s strong interest in access to court records. Local Rule 79-5 also required the request to be limited to material that was legally protectable, such as trade secrets.

The court found that it remained unclear, even when the documents were read with the complaint, what portions contained the alleged trade secrets. Evans’s declaration only stated that he personally knew the facts, data, and information comprising the trade secrets. The court held that he had not shown a compelling reason to seal the material and denied the motion to file under seal.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court denied Evans’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint. It determined that amendment might not be futile, so Evans could file another amended complaint by April 10, 2020, identifying the facts supporting both trade-secret claims and explaining the significance of any documents cited. Alternatively, he could continue the action by paying the required filing fee by that date.

The court warned that a further amended complaint would be dismissed without leave to amend if Evans did not correct the identified deficiencies. It also required Evans, within seven days, to file unredacted versions of the documents or file a renewed motion to seal explaining a compelling reason for sealing them. The court vacated the case-management conference scheduled for March 17, 2020.