Customer relationships, pricing, pipelines and deal terms can be a company's most valuable assets — and the hardest to recover once they leave. Eagan Law represents California businesses in trade secret and confidentiality disputes. Serving Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and Malibu.
A trade secret is protected only if the owner can prove it. That proof starts long before anyone files a lawsuit.
Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), a trade secret is information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known and that the owner has taken reasonable steps to keep secret (Civil Code § 3426.1). Federal law provides a parallel civil action under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836). Whether a customer list, pricing model, development slate or deal structure qualifies depends on the facts: what the information is, who knows it, and what the company did to protect it.
Eagan Law represents businesses that believe a departing employee, manager, partner or vendor took or is using their confidential information. We evaluate early whether the information is protectable, whether it can be identified with the particularity a court will require, what the evidence shows about acquisition and use, and which remedies are realistic.
Trade secret claims are often combined with breach of confidentiality agreements, computer data access claims and departing employee claims. CUTSA can affect how related state-law claims based on the same facts are pleaded, while expressly preserving contractual remedies (Civil Code § 3426.7), so the structure of the case matters.
California requires a trade secret plaintiff to identify the secret with reasonable particularity before beginning discovery on it (Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210). Clear identification shapes the whole case.
Remedies can include injunctions, damages measured by loss or unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty and, for willful and malicious misappropriation, exemplary damages of up to twice the award and attorney's fees.
The Defend Trade Secrets Act provides a federal claim alongside CUTSA. Which forum and which statutes to use is a strategic decision that depends on the facts.
Claims under CUTSA and the Defend Trade Secrets Act against those who acquire, disclose or use a company's trade secrets by improper means or in breach of a duty of confidence.
Contract claims to enforce confidentiality obligations that operate alongside the trade secret statutes. See also our page on NDA and confidentiality agreement disputes.
Before a demand letter or complaint, we evaluate whether the information is protectable, how it can be described, what the evidence shows and what a court is likely to require. A claim that cannot be identified or proven can be costly to bring.
Where use or disclosure is ongoing or imminent, courts can enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation. Federal law also allows seizure orders in extraordinary circumstances. California courts have rejected the "inevitable disclosure" doctrine, so a request for relief must rest on evidence of actual or threatened misappropriation, not on what an employee knows (Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443).
A plaintiff generally must establish each of the following. Each element is a question of proof, and each can be contested.
The information must have independent economic value because it is not generally known, and must be identified with reasonable particularity. General skill, knowledge and publicly available information are not protectable.
The owner must have made efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain secrecy, such as confidentiality agreements, access controls and clear policies.
The defendant acquired the secret by improper means, or disclosed or used it without consent in breach of a duty to keep it secret, or with knowledge that it was improperly obtained.
The owner must show harm or unjust enrichment, or the threat of it, to obtain damages or an injunction.
Trade secret cases are won on identification and evidence. We start there.
We tell you early whether the information is likely to qualify, what the evidence supports and what a realistic outcome looks like.
Courts require precision about what the secret is. We work with you to describe it in a way that protects it and satisfies the court.
Where use is ongoing, we prepare emergency applications on the evidence — and advise when the evidence does not yet support one.
Trade secret disputes often involve sensitive business information. We handle them with the confidentiality, including appropriate protective orders, that the subject demands.
CUTSA (Civil Code § 3426 and following) allows an injunction against actual or threatened misappropriation and damages for actual loss and unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty where neither can be proved (Civil Code § 3426.3). For willful and malicious misappropriation, the court may award exemplary damages of up to twice the damages awarded, and attorney's fees may be awarded to the prevailing party where a claim was made in bad faith or misappropriation was willful and malicious (Civil Code § 3426.4).
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836) provides a federal civil action for misappropriation of trade secrets related to a product or service used in interstate or foreign commerce, with similar remedies. An employer that wants exemplary damages and fees against an employee under the federal statute must have given the employee the whistleblower-immunity notice required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b) in agreements governing confidential information, a point worth checking in any employment agreement entered into or updated after the statute took effect in 2016.
Deadline: A CUTSA claim must generally be brought within three years after the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, and continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim (Civil Code § 3426.6). The federal statute has a similar three-year period.
General information only: This page describes California law in general terms and is not legal advice. Whether a claim exists, and what it is worth, depends on the specific facts, the documents involved and the evidence available. Reviewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Published October 17, 2026. Last updated October 17, 2026.
Information qualifies if it derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to others who could profit from it, and if the owner has made reasonable efforts to keep it secret (Civil Code § 3426.1). Customer and pricing information, methods, processes and compilations can qualify depending on the facts. General skill, knowledge and experience that an employee carries from job to job do not.
It can be, but not automatically. Courts look at whether the list reflects effort and information not readily available elsewhere, whether it is kept confidential, and how it was used. A list of customers whose identities are publicly known, or that anyone in the industry could compile easily, is less likely to be protected.
In California, a party suing for trade secret misappropriation must identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery relating to it (Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210). Courts take this requirement seriously, so the description of the secret is usually prepared carefully and often under a protective order.
Remedies can include an injunction against actual or threatened misappropriation, damages for the owner's actual loss and the defendant's unjust enrichment (or a reasonable royalty), exemplary damages of up to twice the award for willful and malicious misappropriation (Civil Code § 3426.3), and in some cases attorney's fees (Civil Code § 3426.4). What is realistic depends on the evidence.
Employers that want exemplary damages and attorney's fees under the Defend Trade Secrets Act must include notice of the statute's whistleblower immunity in contracts with employees that govern confidential information (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)). The requirement can be met by cross-referencing a policy document that contains the notice. Existing agreements are worth reviewing.