*1 District Judge Shelby referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Pead pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (See ECF No. 64.) The matter is before the court on four motions: (1) Plaintiff Cvent, Inc.’s (“Cvent”) Motion to Enforce Compliance with Court's April 11, 2018 Order or, In The Alternative, for Evidentiary Sanctions (“Motion to Enforce”, ECF No. 198); (2) Defendant RainFocus, Inc.’s (“Rainfocus”) Motion for Protective Order Re: Source Code Access (“Motion for Protective Order”, ECF No. 201); (3) Rainfocus’ Motion to Compel a Complete Response to Interrogatory No. 14 (“Motion to Compel”, ECF No. 203); and (4) Cvent's Motion to Compel the Production of Development Documents or, In The Alternative, For Evidentiary Sanctions (“Motion for Production”, ECF No. 208).

Briefing has concluded. The court has carefully reviewed the moving papers submitted by the parties. Pursuant DUCivR 7-1(f), oral argument is unnecessary and the court will determine the motions on the basis of the written papers.

I. Motion to Enforce, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion for Production.

As these three motions are interrelated, the court addresses them together. The nature of the dispute between the parties is whether Cvent should be granted additional access to review RainFocus’ source code, development documents, and repositories, some of which is stored on a cloud-based program.

Cvent posits its team of experts needs an additional 250 hours of time to complete the source code review because (1) Rainfocus has not produced any of the cloud-based development repositories and documents it creates and stores using Atlassian, (2) the single text file and snapshot of its Git repository itself was corrupted, and (3) the Git repository was not linked to the underlying development documents or collaborative communications. (See ECF Nos. 198, 199 at 6-7.)

Rainfocus counters with (1) it provided Cvent with sufficient access and time to complete its source code review and (2) Rainfocus provided an additional 40,000 Atlassian development documents as recently as March 27, 2019. In turn, Rainfocus contends Cvent's Motion to Enforce should be denied because any additional time would be unduly burdensome and disproportionate to claims at issue in this case. (See ECF Nos. 201 at 2, 214 at 3.) In the alternative, Rainfocus requests a protective order limiting the amount of additional time Cvent may have to complete its source code review. (See ECF No. 201 at 3.)

Previously in April of 2018, the court entered an order requiring Rainfocus to “fully respond and produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Requests for Production 1-6 of Cvent, Inc.’s Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“Third Document Request”).” (Ruling and Order “April Ruling”, ECF No. 161 at 4.) Cvent's Third Document Request contains comprehensive lists of the types of source code and related documents it needs to review to prepare this case for settlement or trial. (See ECF No. 160-1 at 7-8.) Those documents include development file structures, source code version database or revision history archives, cloud-based source code control or software configuration management services, third party libraries and tools, and documents related to the source code development such as tickets, scrums, or stories. (Id.)

*2 Indeed, Rainfocus is already court-ordered to provide Cvent with access to all non-privileged repositories and documents (such as tickets, scrums, reports, roadmaps, etc.,) related to development of Rainfocus’ software, even those stored on or created using cloud-based platforms. (See ECF Nos. 160-1, 161.) According to Cvent's expert, Kendyl A. Román, Rainfocus has yet to produce access to its cloud-based repository or any of the Altassian program documents it uses, and some of what has been produced was corrupted. (See ECF No. 199 at 6.) Rainfocus, however, contends it already produced, as recently as March 27, 2019, over 40,000 pages of development documents including “Jira tickets”, “stories”, and “scrums”. (See ECF No. 214 at 4.) Notwithstanding, Rainfocus’ 40,000 page document production occurred after Cvent filed its Motion to Enforce and Motion for Production.

Consequently, it appears Rainfocus is moving closer to compliance with the court's April Ruling. As a result, the court will not modify that order at this time by allowing Rainfocus’ limited and deficient productions to stand or by denying Cvent additional time to complete its source code review. Rainfocus must provide Cvent access to all source code documents and the like as requested in Cvent's Third Document Request, even those documents created using a cloud-based product or service. In addition, Rainfocus shall ensure that source code materials are produced in the format in which it is kept in the ordinary course of business and that all electronically stored information (“ESI”) produced includes metadata and a link to the native form as required by the court's Amended Protective Order and April Ruling. (See ECF Nos. 173 at 19-20, 161.)

Separately, the court is unpersuaded, at this time, that Cvent needs an additional 250 hours to complete the source code review because (1) Cvent's expert's concedes the review could be completed in fewer hours should additional identical computers be placed in the review room thereby enabling the experts to work simultaneously and (2) Rainfocus’ recent additional production of over 40,000 documents. (See ECF Nos. 199 at 5, 214 at 4.) Therefore, the court grants Cvent an additional 100 hours to complete its source code review.

In order for the source code review to wrap up within this period of time, Rainfocus must promptly facilitate Cvent's requests to have its experts access the source code review room and provide access to at least three (3) computers. Should access to the source code review room be problematic or if Rainfocus is unable to provide additional computers, the court will entertain requests to change the review from a deployed review to an internet repository code review, as suggested by Cvent's expert Mr. Román, increase the hours, modify the Scheduling Order, or consider imposing sanctions.

II. Motion to Compel.

Independent from the source code review issue, RainFocus seeks a court order compelling Cvent to provide a complete response to Interrogatory No. 14, which was included in Rainfocus’ Sixth Set of Written Discovery Requests dated October 23, 2018. (See ECF No. 202 at 1.) Interrogatory 14 requires Cvent to “[i]dentify and define in detail each and every one of [Cvent's] alleged trade secret(s) asserted in [this case], including all information and documents (confidential, proprietary, or otherwise) alleged to constitute [Cvent's] trade secrets, in full or in part. (See ECF No. 202-1 at 19.) Rainfocus posits generally that without Cvent's complete response to Interrogatory 14, it is unable to adequately complete discovery or prepare its defenses. (See ECF No. 202 at 1.) To be accurate, Cvent has responded to Interrogatory 14 over the course of 18 pages, however, Rainfocus labels the response as “generic and unhelpful narrative.” (See ECF No. 202 at 1.)

In a trade secret case, “[t]here is no privilege excepting trade secrets from discovery, but ‘courts must exercise discretion to avoid unnecessary disclosures of such information.’ ” L-3 Commc'n Corp. v. Jaxon Eng'g & Maint., Inc., 2001 WL 10858409, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 12, 2011) (citing Dura Global Techs., Inc. v. Magna Donnelly, Corp., 2007 WL 4303294, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2007) (quoting Automeds Techs., Inc. v. Eller, 160 F. Supp. 2d 915, 925 (N.D. Ill. 1974)). Thus, a party is required to identify with reasonable particularity what it claims constitutes a trade secret. See Id. (quoting Automeds, 160 F. Supp. at 926). This requires a plaintiff to describe the trade secret with “...adequate specificity to inform the defendants what is alleged to have [been] misappropriated.” Storagecraft Tech. Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 2009 WL 361282, at *2 (D. Utah February 11, 2009). Therefore, the issue before this court is whether Cvent has satisfied the “reasonable particularity” standard in its 18-page response to Interrogatory 14.

*3 Cvent's response to Interrogatory 14 is filed under seal, which limits the court in its discussion of this issue. (See ECF No. 209.) Despite such limitation, it is clear Cvent's response lists general categories and types of information, such as architecture, design, software code, etc., it alleges comprise its trade secrets. These generic references to common design categories are insufficient to satisfy the reasonable particularity standard. See L–3 Commc'n Corp., 2011 WL 10858409, at *2 (“general allegations and generic references to products or information are insufficient to satisfy the reasonable particularity standard”); see also Switch Commc'n Group v. Ballard, 2012 WL 2342929, at *5 (D. Nev. June 19, 2012) (“In order to meet its burden of describing its alleged trade secrets with reasonable particularity,” for purposes of discovery, “Switch must specifically describe what particular combination of components renders each of its designs novel or unique, how the components are combined, and how they operate in unique combination”). Nothing included in Cvent's lists sufficiently allows Rainfocus to separate Cvent's architecture, for instance, from matters of general knowledge and those of special knowledge allowing Rainfocus to identify the boundaries within which Cvent's trade secret lies. Therefore, Cvent shall supplement its response to Interrogatory 14.

The court, having considered the Motions and the arguments submitted in reference thereto, being fully advised, hereby ORDERS that:

1. The Motions to Enforce (ECF No. 198) and for Production (ECF No. 208) are GRANTED, and the Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 201) is GRANTED, in part. RainFocus is ordered to provide Cvent's team of experts, within five business days, the following:

2. Rainfocus’ Motion to Compel is GRANTED. (ECF No. 202.) On or before May 1, 2019, Cvent shall supplement its response to Interrogatory 14.

3. Cvent's Motion for Leave to File a Reply is MOOTED. (ECF No. 218.)

4. If this Ruling and Order upsets the discovery schedule established in this case, the parties are directed to meaningfully engage in discussions about modifying the discovery deadlines, as set forth in the Fourth Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 194), in order to effectively implement the mandates contained herein prior to filing any motions to amend with the court.

SO ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2019.