Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TRIGO ADR AMERICAS, LLC, Case No.: 23-cv-2219-AGS-MMP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING OEM’S 12 v. MOTION TO COMPEL TRIGO TO ANSWER INTERROGATORY NO. 13 OEM LOGISTICS, LLC, et al., 24 14 Defendants. [ECF No. 85] 15 16 17 This is a trade secret action in which Plaintiff Trigo ADR Americas, LLC (“Trigo”) 18 contends its former employees, Defendants Steven Clarke, Jay Nicholas, Eric Adler, and 19 Michael Thomson, misappropriated confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information 20 they subsequently used while working for Defendant OEM Logistics, LLC (“OEM”). ECF 21 Nos. 1, 6. This motion is one of three pending discovery motions. ECF No. 85; see also 22 ECF Nos. 73, 74. The Court presumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and discusses 23 them only as necessary for context. 24 OEM moves for an order compelling Trigo to answer Interrogatory 24.1 ECF No. 85 25 at 18–19. Trigo filed an opposition, to which OEM replied. ECF Nos. 87, 88. The Court 26 27 1 OEM’s motion sought to compel further responses to numerous other Interrogatories and 28 1 found the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument 2 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and the undersigned’s Civil Chambers Rule X(F). 3 ECF No. 86. The Court held a Status Conference on August 18, 2026, in which the parties 4 addressed the issues raised in the motion. ECF Nos. 89, 92. For the reasons stated below, 5 the Court GRANTS OEM’s motion. 6 I. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(b)(1) establishes the scope of discovery 8 as follows: 9 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 10 case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 11 amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 12 whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 13 benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 14 15 An interrogatory propounded under Rule 33 “may relate to any matter that may be 16 inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “The grounds for objecting to an 17 interrogatory must be stated with specificity” and “[a]ny ground not stated in a timely 18 objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 33(b)(4). Any interrogatory not objected to must “be answered separately and fully in 20 writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). 21 Any party, on notice to other parties and all affected persons, may apply for an order 22 compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Rule 37 provides for an entry of an order 23 compelling discovery where “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 24 33[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii). 25 26 and confer efforts among counsel, Plaintiff confirmed it has agreed to supplement 27 Interrogatory Nos. 23 and 25 and RFPs 94–99 and 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, and 140. ECF No. 96. Accordingly, the Court focuses its analysis on the only remaining discovery request 28 1 The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing relevance 2 under Rule 26(b)(1). Alves v. Riverside Cnty., 339 F.R.D. 556, 559 (C.D. Cal. 2021). “Once 3 the propounding party establishes that the request seeks relevant information, the party who 4 resists discovery has the burden to show discovery should not be allowed, and has the 5 burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Goro v. Flowers Foods, 6 Inc., 334 F.R.D. 275, 283 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (citations modified). 7 II. ANALYSIS 8 Interrogatory 24 asks Trigo to “[i]dentify each customer whose business relationship 9 with YOU ceased or was terminated for any reason during the period of July 1, 2020 to the 10 present.” ECF No. 85 at 19. 11 In response, Trigo asserted the following objections: 12 Objection. The interrogatory contains discrete subparts and exceeds the interrogatory limit under FRCP 33(a)(1). The term “YOU(R)” is vague and 13 overbroad to the extent it includes third parties. Plaintiff answers only for 14 itself. The interrogatory seeks confidential information related to Plaintiffs [sic] trade secrets, customers, vendors and suppliers, and financial 15 information beyond the scope of any party’s claims or defenses. The 16 interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant to any party’s claim or defenses nor proportionate to the needs 17 of the case. 18 19 ECF No. 85 at 19; 85-3 at 3–4. 20 The Court addresses the propriety of Trigo’s objections. As a preliminary matter, the 21 interrogatory does not contain discrete subparts; Trigo’s objection is thus overruled. The 22 Court has already entered a stipulated Protective Order in this case, ECF No. 36. Even 23 assuming the identification of former Trigo customers is confidential, Trigo fails to explain 24 why the stipulated Protective Order is insufficient. Accordingly, Trigo’s objection based 25 on confidentiality is also overruled. 26 The focus of Trigo’s opposition is Interrogatory 24 seeks information that is neither 27 relevant to any party’s claim or defenses nor proportional to the case. ECF No. 87 at 5–6. 28 1 With respect to relevance, OEM contends “why Trigo lost its customers” is a key 2 issue, and “[w]hether Trigo experienced a pattern of contract losses – wholly unrelated to 3 OEM – during the relevant time period gets to the heart of the issue here[.]” ECF No. 85 4 at 18. 5 In opposition, Trigo maintains the request is irrelevant to the extent it seeks the 6 identity of customers beyond what Trigo claims it lost because of Defendants’ conduct, 7 which is limited to two customers: Bell Helicopter and Raytheon. ECF No. 87 at 5. Said 8 differently, the fact a customer may have left Trigo for any reason unrelated to Defendants’ 9 conduct “has nothing to do with this case” and is therefore not a proper subject of 10 discovery. Id. at 6. 11 To establish trade secret misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets 12 Act (DTSA) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), the plaintiff must 13 prove, among other elements, “the defendant’s actions damaged the plaintiff.” Albert's 14 Organics, Inc. v. Holzman, 445 F. Supp. 3d 463, 471 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citation omitted). 15 OEM explains it seeks discovery to challenge Trigo’s allegations that Defendants’ alleged 16 misconduct—including misappropriation of trade secrets as well as interference with 17 business relations and prospective economic advantage—caused Trigo’s loss of business 18 and resulting damages. According to OEM, identifying the scope of customers Trigo lost 19 around the same time as the alleged misappropriation is relevant to Defendants’ ability to 20 show alternative causes (other than the alleged misappropriation) contributed to Trigo’s 21 lost business. In light of the broad construction of relevance for purposes of discovery 22 under Rule 26(b)(1), the Court finds OEM has satisfied its burden of establishing relevance. 23 See In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d 535, 539 (9th Cir. 2020); Surfvivor Media, Inc. 24 v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (“District courts have broad 25 discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes.”). 26 Trigo contends the motion should be denied because Interrogatory 24 is “incredibly 27 overbroad” and thus not proportional. ECF No. 87 at 5. According to Trigo, permitting this 28 discovery is a slippery slope because “all of a sudden, we’re going to be litigating why 1 ||someone left and why someone didn’t leave and whether or not [Trigo] gave good customer 2 || service to people and talking about patterns of -- that is so far afield in a trade secret case.” 3 || ECF No. 92, August 18, 2026 Conf. Tr. 28:24—29:2. While the Court is inclined to agree 4 || that extensive document discovery into the reason each and every customer left Trigo may 5 ||not be proportional, Trigo’s argument puts the cart before the horse. Interrogatory 24 6 ||merely asks Trigo to identify customers whose relationship ended during the relevant 7 |\|period. It seeks nothing more. Trigo does not explain how providing this limited 8 ||information is overly burdensome. Moreover, numerous proportionality factors, including 9 ||the amount in controversy, Trigo’s exclusive access to this information, and the parties’ 10 |/resources, weigh in favor of permitting this limited discovery. On this record, the Court 11 |/finds the burden or expense for Trigo to identify its former customers in response to 12 || Interrogatory 24 does not outweigh its likely benefit. 13 ||. CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons stated above, the Court finds Interrogatory 24 is relevant and 15 || proportional under Rule 26(b)(1) and thus GRANTS OEM’s motion to compel Trigo to 16 |janswer Interrogatory 24. The Court further ORDERS Trigo shall fully answer 17 || Interrogatory 24 under oath within fourteen (14) days of this Order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: September 21, 2026 We vf, hy Ny. sett 20 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT 3 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28