The Court disagrees because, as discussed above, Mattson describes in detail its efforts to maintain the secrecy of its purported trade secrets (e.g., confidentiality agreements, data encryption). See, e.g., MBS Eng'g Inc. v. Black Hemp Box, LLC, No. 20-cv-02825-JD, 2021 WL 2458370, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2021) (allegations of, inter alia, non-disclosure agreements, password protection and disclosure on need-to-know basis sufficient); Gatan, Inc. v. Nion Co., No. 15-cv-01862-PJH, 2017 WL 1196819, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) (similar).
Based on all of the steps taken, the Court finds that ValveTech made reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its trade secrets. See, e.g., Bal Seal Eng'g, Inc. v. Nelson Prod., Inc., No. 813CV01880JLSKESX, 2018 WL 4697255, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2018) (noting that "the combination of the proprietary stamp, the terms of conditions of sale, and the use of NDAs in most cases could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude that [the plaintiff] took reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the documents"); Gatan, Inc. v. Nion Co., No. 15-CV-01862-PJH, 2017 WL 1196819, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) (finding misappropriation allegations sufficient where the plaintiff alleged that it had an NDA with the defendant who had a duty to maintain confidentiality of the trade secrets, yet the defendant "built upon or modified" the trade secrets to develop its own technology). Finally, ValveTech adequately pled Aerojet's wrongful acquisition, disclosure, or use of its trade secrets.
Such allegations also state a claim of use misappropriation. See, e.g. , Gatan, Inc. v. Nion Co. , No. 15-cv-01862-PJH, 2017 WL 1196819, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) (finding sufficient the allegations of misappropriation when the allegations included that the defendant was subject to an agreement and had a duty to maintain confidentiality of the trade secrets, yet the defendant "built upon or modified" the trade secrets to develop defendant's own technology). Thus, the Court rejects LGE's argument that Alta's DTSA and CUTSA claims should be dismissed for failure to allege the trade secrets with particularity.
However, Plaintiff notes that contractual restraints on labor mobility that are "designed to protect an employer's proprietary information do not violate section 16600." Gatan, Inc. v. Nion Co., 2017 WL 1196819, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017). Defendant responds that if these restrictions are designed to protect an employer's proprietary information, the restrictions are related to CUTSA and thus preempted.
Instead, the Court finds that the asserted trade secrets are sufficiently identified in the SAC. With respect to identification of trade secrets in a complaint under the Rule 8 standard, the SAC contains "reasonable" detail—enough to permit Google to prepare a defense and for the court to craft limits on discovery. See Gatan, Inc. v. Nion Co., No. 15-01862-PJH, 2017 WL 1196819, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) (noting that the party alleging misappropriation need not "define every minute detail of its claimed trade secret at the outset of the litigation") (citation omitted). Relatedly, Google also raises the issue that Space Data's amended statement under California Civil Code § 2019.210 fails to state the trade secrets with sufficient particularity.