United States District Court, D. Oregon
Chenoweth, Brooks M. Foster, and Andrea R. Meyer, Chenoweth
Law Group, PC, Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.
H. Hamm, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, John M. Weyrauch and Peter
R. Forrest, Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC, Of Attorneys for
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON, DISTRICT JUDGE.
Quaiz (“Plaintiff”) brings this lawsuit against
Rockler Retail Group, Inc. and Rockler Companies, Inc.
(collectively “Rockler” or
“Defendants”), alleging misappropriation of trade
secrets in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.461,
646.463 and 646.465 and common law unjust enrichment. Before
the Court is Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff to
identify his alleged trade secrets with reasonable
particularity and to stay discovery until he does so. For the
reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is denied.
26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Among the limitations stated in
Rule 26(b)(2)(C) is the direction that the court must limit
the extent of discovery if it determines that the discovery
sought is outside the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) or if it is
“unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(b)(2)(C)(i). In addition, Rule 26 provides that the court
may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or
person from oppression or undue burden, including
“requiring that a trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial information not be
revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.”
November 2011, Plaintiff designed a corner clamp for use in
woodworking (“Plaintiff's Clamp”). Am. Compl.
¶ 8. As designed, Plaintiff's Clamp holds two pieces
of wood together at a right angle without the aid of any
additional structures. Id. Rockler solicits the
general public to submit design ideas, representing that
their “philosophy is to support and encourage inventors
who bring innovation to the woodworking market. We do no
steal ideas, and we are willing to pay inventors for
partnering with Rockler.” Id. at ¶ 10.
reviewing Rocker's web page and representations, in
mid-2012 Plaintiff approached Rockler describing
Plaintiff's Clamp. Id. ¶¶ 11-12.
Rockler responded by requesting that Plaintiff submit images
of his design. Id. ¶ 13. On July 13, 2013, in
continued reliance on Rockler's representations from its
website, Plaintiff submitted by email to Rockler 14 detailed
design drawings of Plaintiff's Clamp. Id. ¶
14. On August 8, 2012, Rockler declined to enter into a
business relationship with Plaintiff. Id. at ¶
does not allege and Rockler does not argue that Plaintiff
submitted any other ideas to Rockler or had any additional
contacts with Rockler until this lawsuit. In August 2015,
Rockler began selling a new corner-clamping jig
(“Rockler's Clamp”). Id. at ¶
20. Plaintiff alleges that by making Rockler's Clamp,
Rockler misappropriated the design of Plaintiff's Clamp
that Plaintiff provided to Rockler in July 2012. Id.
at ¶¶ 21-22.
did not attach to his Amended Complaint copies of any of the
14 images that he provided to Rockler in July 2012.
Defendants state that after conducting a search for the
images, they were unable to locate them. ECF 26 at 7.