I have remarked before how hard the Business Court has been on Plaintiffs making trade secrets claims. You can look here and here for example of these prior posts. The Court has often dismissed trade secrets claims on a 12(b)(6) Motion because the trade secrets were not described with sufficient particularity.
This week, in Le Bleu Corp. v. B. Kelley Enterprises, Inc., 2014 NCBC 65, Judge Gale stopped short of granting a Motion to Dismiss a trade secrets claim, but nevertheless ordered the Plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement describing their alleged trade secrets in their customer information.
The parties in the case are engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of bottled water in the Southeastern United States. The trade secrets claimed were Plaintiffs’ "customer lists, pricing information, transaction histories, key contacts, and customer leads." First Amended Complaint ¶30.
That would seem to be enough of a description of customer information to make out a trade secrets claim. The NC Court of Appeals had held, just last year, that allegations of misappropriation of "pricing information, customer proposals, historical costs, and sales data" is a sufficient identification of alleged trade secrets. GE Betz, Inc. v. Conrad, __ N.C. App. __, 752 S.E.2d 634, 648-49 (2013). Also, the Business Court had held, in one of its early opinions, that customer information "including the identity, contacts and requirements" of customers can constitute a trade secret. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Head & Engquist Equip., LLC, 2002 NCBC 2 at *38, 41-42.
But notwithstanding that authority, Judge Gale was not satisfied that the Plaintiffs’ description of their claimed trade secrets was sufficient to support their claim. He ruled that:
whether ‘pricing information, transaction histories, key contacts, and customer leads,’ actually constitute trade secrets depends upon the contents of the materials at issue. A price list may constitute a trade secret where it contains pricing information, market forecasts, and feasibility studies, but may not if it consists of raw information without any methodology.
He directed, with regard to the two lists which the Plaintiffs claimed were the trade secrets that had been misappropriated, that they provide, within twenty days, a more definite statement "that specifically describes the contents of both lists and why the information is entitled to trade secret protection." Order ¶33.