Optionality Consulting Pte. Ltd v. Edge Technology Group LLC

Background

The court considered three related motions: the defendants’ request for a protective order requiring more specific identification of the plaintiff’s trade secrets and confidential information; the plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel discovery; and the parties’ joint motion to seal Exhibit B to the plaintiff’s memorandum supporting its discovery motion.

The plaintiff alleged that, through a joint venture and partnership, it provided the defendants with expertise, materials, and know-how related to cybersecurity services. The plaintiff identified information including tools, formulas, templates, project-opportunity information, business strategies and plans, testing protocols, frameworks, policies, procedures, training materials, cybersecurity mapping, and reports. The defendants had produced approximately 4,000 pages, while the plaintiff later provided more than 1,000 documents to help the defendants determine what information they might possess.

Trade-secret identification

The court applied the discovery rules requiring information to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. It also applied the principle that a plaintiff in a trade-secret case generally must identify alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity”—enough detail to give the defendant notice of the nature of the claim and help identify relevant discovery.

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s descriptions, including the more than twenty-five categories in its March 29, 2022 letter, were sufficiently specific at the discovery stage and were not merely generic descriptions in this case. The defendants were directed to use the parties’ correspondence to develop search terms and produce additional relevant documents. The parties were directed to meet and confer further if necessary. The court also stated that the plaintiff should provide greater specificity where it could, but did not need to explain the basis for claiming confidentiality or address whether the information was publicly available because those issues were outside the scope of deciding relevant and proportional discovery.

Discovery requests

The court found that both sides could have complied more fully with their discovery obligations. The plaintiff had to tailor requests to relevant and proportional information, while the defendants had to state objections specifically and propose narrower requests during discussions between the parties.

The court ruled as follows:

- Request 19: The request for all documents and communications about a broad range of cybersecurity services, without a time limit, was overly broad. The defendants did not have to respond. Any revised request had to focus on the plaintiff’s confidential information and trade secrets. - Request 23: The request for all documents and communications concerning an employee’s work and responsibilities in cybersecurity offerings was overly broad. The defendants did not have to respond. The plaintiff was directed to consider whether a job description and samples would suffice and to focus any revised request on specified materials it developed while partnering with the defendants. - Request 31: The request concerning the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation was not relevant to the allegations in the amended complaint because the plaintiff did not allege that it provided the defendants with related confidential information or trade secrets. The defendants did not have to respond. - Request 38: The request for all statements of work over a seven-year period was overly broad and duplicative. The defendants had to produce statements of work from 2016 through the date of the order that incorporated the plaintiff’s materials or similar materials. The parties were directed to discuss whether samples of other cybersecurity statements of work were relevant. - Request 45: The request for all documents concerning the advertising, sale, promotion, or marketing of cybersecurity services over five years was overly broad. The defendants had to produce representative samples for that period. - Requests 48, 49, and 50: These requests sought revenue and profit information about products unrelated to CyberSAIF. The defendants did not have to produce that information. The plaintiff could tailor requests for any revenue streams relevant to its claims.

The court also ordered the defendants to comply with any remaining document requests to which they had not objected. Any objection to those requests was deemed waived as untimely.

Sealing ruling and disposition

The court granted the parties’ joint motion to seal Exhibit B. It found that the document contained internal strategies and processes and that protecting sensitive, competitive, or proprietary business information justified sealing it.

The court denied the defendants’ motion for a protective order, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel, and granted the parties’ joint motion to seal. The parties had to meet within two weeks to determine a production schedule consistent with the order.