See In re Cont'l Gen. Tire, 979 S.W.2d at 611. If an expert can form an accurate opinion on the relevant subject without the trade secrets, then the information is useful rather than necessary. See In re XTO Res. I, LP, 248 S.W.3d 898, 905 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding) (holding that party failed to show necessity when expert testified that trade secret information would be useful to prepare report with least amount of uncertainty, but opinion could be formed without it). If an alternative means of proof is available that would not significantly impair the presentation of the case's merits, then the information is not necessary. See In re Union Pac. R.R., 294 S.W.3d 589, 592–93 (Tex.2009) (orig.

If an expert can form an accurate opinion on the relevant subject without the trade secrets, then the information is useful rather than necessary. See In re XTO Res. I, LP, 248 S.W.3d 898, 905 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding) (holding that party failed to show necessity when expert testified that trade secret information would be useful to prepare report with least amount of uncertainty, but opinion could be formed without it). If an alternative means of proof is available that would not significantly impair the presentation of the case's merits, then the information is not necessary. See In re Union Pac. R.R., 294 S.W.3d at 592-93; In re Cont'l Gen. Tire, 979 S.W.2d at 615.

The party seeking to obtain disclosure of a trade secret must make a particularized showing that the information is necessary to the proof of one or more material elements of the claim and that it is reasonable to conclude that the information sought is essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. In re XTO Res. I, LP, 248 S.W.3d 898, 904 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing Cont'l Gen. Tire, 979 S.W.2d at 611-12). "[T]he test cannot be satisfied merely by general assertions of unfairness. Nor is it enough to show that the information would be useful to the party's expert; the party must show that it is necessary."

Id. at 742. In the case of In re XTO Resources I, LP, the court conditionally granted XTO's writ of mandamus, finding that requests for production seeking, among other things, XTO's reserve estimates, recoverable gas reserve estimates, and projected future revenues for all wells covered by XTO's leases, as well as data identifying “proved undeveloped acreage” and “proved developed not producing acreage” on the leases were entitled to trade secret protection. 248 S.W.3d 898, 903–04 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding). In support of its position, XTO submitted affidavits of two XTO employees to the trial court: a senior vice president of engineering and a supervisor of digital log data.

As several courts have stated, this is a "heightened burden," In re Cont'l Gen. Tire, Inc. , 979 S.W.2d at 613-14, and requires the requesting party to present evidence. Seeid. at 615 ; In re Kongsberg, Inc. , 563 S.W.3d 915, 921-23 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2018, orig. proceeding) ; In re Daimler Trucks N.A., LLC , 551 S.W.3d 833, 841 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, orig. proceeding) ; In re Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc. , 286 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, orig. proceeding) ; In re XTO Resources I, LP , 248 S.W.3d 898, 905 n.1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding) ; In re Diamond Shamrock Ref. Co. , No. 07-06-0315-CV, 2007 WL 63370, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 10, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ; see alsoIn re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. , 313 S.W.3d at 918-19. Russell Marine asserts that it met its burden because it already has "substantial circumstantial evidence that Ruiz misappropriated thousands of pages of its trade secrets to enable the undercutting of Russell Marine's bids to key customers."

If an expert can form an accurate opinion on the relevant subject without the trade secrets, then the information is useful rather than necessary. SeeIn re XTO Res. I, LP , 248 S.W.3d 898, 905 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding) (holding party failed to show necessity when expert testified trade secret information would be useful to prepare report with least amount of uncertainty, but opinion could be formed without it). If an alternative means of proof is available that would not significantly impair the presentation of the case's merits, then the information is not necessary. SeeIn re Union Pac. R. Co. , 294 S.W.3d 589, 592-93 (Tex. 2009) ; Cont'lGen.

Id. Nor is necessity established by a claim that the information would be useful rather than necessary. See In re XTO Res. I, LP, 248 S.W.3d 898, 905 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding). If an alternative means of proof is available that would not significantly impair the presentation of the case's merits, then the information is not necessary. See Union Pac. R.R. Co., 294 S.W.3d at 592–93.

Data consisting of subsurface gas reserves, including reserve estimates and future revenue projections are also trade secrets in Texas. See In re XTO Res. I. LP, 248 S.W.3d 898, 900-04 (Tex. App. 2008). The Court finds that the data provided by LexMac and Novus to MBL is a trade secret under Texas law.