Auris Health, Inc. v. Noah Medical Corporation

Background

This trade-secrets case concerns allegations that former Auris employees who joined Noah Medical acquired, copied, or used Auris trade-secret information. The plaintiffs are Auris Health, Inc., Verb Surgical Inc., and Cilag Gmbh International. The moving defendants are Noah Medical Corporation, Enrique Romo, Diana Cardona Ujueta, and Kenneth Nip.

The defendants presented two discovery disputes. First, they sought further answers to Interrogatory No. 1, which asked the plaintiffs to identify each alleged trade secret with precision and specificity. The plaintiffs said their responses were complete and identified 78 distinct trade secrets. Second, the defendants sought answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2 through 7, which asked about matters including who created each trade secret, to whom it had been given, how each defendant acquired it, how it was used or disclosed, and what information each defendant still possessed.

Sealing motions

The plaintiffs filed a motion to seal their complete trade-secret identification. The court found good cause to protect the information and granted that motion. The court also denied the defendants’ administrative motion concerning the sealing of the defendants’ interrogatories and the plaintiffs’ responses and objections.

Joint Statement No. 1

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs should immediately provide the actual content and boundaries of every alleged trade secret. The court agreed that the detail required during discovery is greater than the pre-discovery standard for identifying trade secrets. But the court concluded that the defendants’ contention interrogatories were premature because discovery was still at an early stage, many defendants had not begun producing documents, and only a subset of the alleged trade secrets would ultimately proceed to trial.

The court therefore granted and denied in part the defendants’ request. The plaintiffs were ordered to supplement their responses to Interrogatory No. 1 by December 15, 2023, which was thirty days after the deadline for substantial production. The court did not require the plaintiffs to provide the requested complete supplementation immediately.

Joint Statement No. 2

The defendants also sought answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2 through 7. The court agreed with the plaintiffs that asking for information about “each” of multiple trade secrets created separate subparts for each trade secret. The court also recognized that the defendants might have good cause to seek additional interrogatories beyond the 25-interrogatory limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

Because it was not yet clear which trade secrets, or how many, the plaintiffs would pursue at trial, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ request. The plaintiffs had to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 2 through 7 to the extent they then knew that particular trade secrets would be pursued. At the next discovery meeting, the plaintiffs had to identify the trade secrets they were certain to pursue, and the parties had to plan a response schedule and discuss whether to stipulate to additional interrogatories.

Disposition

The court concluded that the moving defendants’ requests for relief in Joint Statements Nos. 1 and 2 were granted and denied in part. The order was issued by the court on September 12, 2023.