Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash. in Department 8A

At an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) held on January 9, 2026, the Defendants raised and the Court agreed that Plaintiff’s Trade Secret Designation “is narrower than the allegations in the complaint” and created an asymmetry problem with respect to the sufficiency of the Trade Secret Designation. (1/9/26 IDC Order.) Plaintiff subsequently moved for – and was granted – leave to amend the complaints in Meline (fourth amended complaint) and Alpha (sixth amended complaint). Plaintiff filed the operative amended complaints on February 20, 2026.

On March 6, 2026, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to quash a subpoena to CSA. (3/6/26 Order.) In its March 6, 2026, Order the Court noted that “Defendants advance the following arguments in support of its motion: (1) the Trade Secret Designation does not meet the exacting specificity requirements of section 2019.210 notwithstanding the inspections Plaintiff permitted; (2) numerous trade secrets placed in issue in its operative complaints are not addressed in its Trade Secret Designation; (3) Plaintiff’s production was overboard, generalized, and not reasonably particularized; and (4) the subpoena is overbroad based on its expansive definition of ‘relating to.’” (Id. at p. 3.) Considering this, the Court rejected Defendants’ arguments that the Trade Secret Designation, paired with the source code inspections, did not meet the exacting level of particularity requirement:

Plaintiff has shown what it contends are its trade secrets along with the written descriptions in the Trade Secret Designation and this is sufficient. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants’ arguments in this motion related to specificity are merits-based and beyond the purpose of section 2019.210. The Court is also not persuaded by Defendants’ disputes regarding Plaintiff’s production; nor is the Court persuaded by any of Defendants’ other challenges to the scope of the subpoena. The Court declines to quash the subpoena on these grounds. (Id. at pp. 3-4.)

At the time the subpoena was served, Plaintiff’s Trade Secret Designation did not include all trade secrets alleged in its then-operative complaints. (Id. at p. 4.) As a result, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash. (Ibid.)

Here, Defendants again move to quash the subpoena to CSA in its entirety and request monetary sanctions. Plaintiff opposes.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 provides: In any action alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Title 5

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash. in Department 8A

(commencing with Section 3426) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code), before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity subject to any orders that may be appropriate under Section 3426.5 of the Civil Code.

The “‘reasonable particularity’ mandated by section 2019.210 does not mean that the party alleging misappropriation has to define every minute detail of its claimed trade secret at the outset of the litigation. Nor does it require a discovery referee or trial court to conduct a miniature trial on the merits of a misappropriation claim before discovery may commence. Rather, it means that the plaintiff must make some showing that is reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational[,] [citation] under all of the circumstances to identify its alleged trade secret in a manner that will allow the trial court to control the scope of subsequent discovery, protect all parties' proprietary information, and allow them a fair opportunity to prepare and present their best case or defense at a trial on the merits.” (Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v.

Superior Court, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836.) However, where “the alleged trade secrets consist of incremental variations on, or advances in the state of the art in a highly specialized technical field, a more exacting level of particularity may be required to distinguish the alleged trade secrets from matters already known to persons skilled in that field.” (Ibid.; see also Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1346.)

Through this motion, Defendants request that the Court quash Smartrise’s March 13, 2026, subpoena to CSA and enter a protective order barring further discovery unless Smartrise first complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210. (Mov. MPA, p. 4:2-5.) Among other things, Defendants argue that when Smartrise provided its amended responses to Alpha’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three, on March 25, 2026, what Smartrise produced “revealed what it had been concealing all along” – “the source code files identified in the appendices to its [Consolidated Action Trade Secret Designation Statement] are not the source code files it alleges Defendants misappropriated from the T: Drive.” (Id. at p. 4:19-25.)

Defendants contend that this affirms a Section 2019.210 violation because: (1) Trade Secret Designation still does not identify the trade secret source code that Smartrise alleges was misappropriated from the T: Drive; (2) the Sixth Amended Complaint alleges an additional category of trade secret “design” that is not identified in the Trade Secret Designation; and (3) Business Trade Secret No. 1 remains impermissibly open ended and indefinite.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that the Court has already found Smartrise made a code-compliant designation under section 2019.210 as of February 20, 2026. (Opp’n, p. 6:23-24.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash. in Department 8A

Indeed, as the Court noted in its March 6th Order, “[w]hile Plaintiff has now cured the asymmetry issues by filing amended complaints, the Court finds this subpoena still needs to be quashed based on the sequencing requirements in section 2019.210.” (Ibid.) Nevertheless, the Court stated, “now that the Court has found Plaintiff has made a code-compliant designation under section 2019.210 as of February 20, 2026 [the date when the operative Complaints were filed], Plaintiff may serve a new subpoena on CSA Group.” (3/6/26 Order, p. 4 [emphasis added].)

In denying Defendants’ request for sanctions, the Court stated: “The Court finds Plaintiff was substantially justified in opposing this motion based on the fact Plaintiff received a determination that its Trade Secret Designation is now compliant with section. 2019.210. Accordingly, Plaintiff was partially successful in opposing this motion.” (Ibid.)

Having previously found that Plaintiff made a code-compliant designation pursuant to section 2019.210, and considering that the operative complaints were filed at the time of the Court’s March 6th ruling, the Court is not persuaded that Defendants’ arguments support a finding to the contrary.

Disposition

Defendants’ motion to quash is DENIED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice are unopposed and GRANTED for the limited purposes appropriate for judicial notice.

Defendants’ Application to file under seal the records submitted in support of this motion to quash is unopposed and GRANTED. The Court orders the following documents to be filed under seal:

1. Unredacted Declaration of Michael J. Thomas in Support of Motion to Quash and/or For Protective Order Re: Subpoena to CSA Group Testing and Certification Inc. and Exhibits C, F and S thereto.

2. Unredacted Version of Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Quash and/or For Protective Order RE: Subpoena to CSA Group Testing and Certification Inc., including Exhibit 1 thereto.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8a at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00308769-CU-BC-GDS: Smartrise Engineering, Inc. vs. Brent Meline 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash. in Department 8A

order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864, ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.