*1 On December 18, 2018, Defendants StubHub, Inc. and eBay, Inc. filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff Calendar Research LLC's Trade Secret Identification Responses (“Motion to Compel,” Dkt. No. 204), supported by a Memorandum (“Defs.' Mem. re MTC”) and a declaration of Samuel A. Jacobs (“Jacobs Decl.”). That same day, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time on Motion to Compel (“Ex Parte Application,” Dkt. No. 203), also supported by a Memorandum (“Defs.' Mem. re Ex Parte Appl.”) and the declaration of Mr. Jacobs.

Both the Motion to Compel and the Ex Parte Application advance essentially the same arguments. In sum, Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to amend its response to Defendants' October 15, 2018 interrogatory regarding identification of Plaintiff's trade secrets. Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to provide greater detail about Plaintiff's trade secrets.

Defendants contend that they have repeatedly asked Plaintiff to identify its trade secrets, and Plaintiff has refused to do so. (See Defs.' Mem re MTC at 1). Instead, according to Defendants, Plaintiff has provided only the “vague” trade secret recitation that it previously alleged in its operative pleadings, while insisting that it will identify its trade secrets with particularly at some unspecified time in the future. (Id.). Defendants contend, however, that Plaintiff has an obligation to identify its trade secrets with particularity in time to allow Defendants to conduct further discovery on the matter. (Id. at 8-10). They contend that Plaintiff's delay in providing an adequate description irreparably harms Defendants by preventing them from fairly mounting a defense to Plaintiff's claims. (Id.). Defendants argue, therefore, that ex parte relief is warranted here, in light of the impending discovery deadline of January 11, 2019. (Defs.' Mem re Ex Parte Appl. at 2, 8; see Dkt. No. 175 at 4).[1]

Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Ex Parte Application on December 19, 2018. (“Pl.'s Opp.,” Dkt. No. 206). On the same date, the Court held an informal telephonic hearing on these matters. (Dkt. No. 208). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Ex Parte Application and Motion to Compel are GRANTED.

A. Ex Parte Relief Is Justified

Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief and should be used with discretion. See Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995). Evidence must show that the moving party's cause “will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures.” Id. at 492. Moreover, the moving party must establish that it is “without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.” Id.

Here, Defendants served their trade secret identification interrogatories on the day the current phase of discovery began, October 15, 2018. (See Dkt. No. 196-14, at 6-7). When they found themselves dissatisfied with the responses Plaintiff sent on November 14, they swiftly conferred with Plaintiff and then brought the matter to the Court's attention in a telephonic conference on November 29. (See Dkt. No. 196-16; Jacobs Decl. Exh. B). After that, Defendants gave Plaintiff more than two weeks to engage in discovery and provide a more detailed description of Plaintiff's trade secrets. This was a reasonable duration to wait before seeking relief from the Court, given the short discovery schedule and the impending deadline of January 11, 2019, as set by the district judge.

*2 The information Defendants seek is critical to their defense. In this action, Plaintiff claims that Defendants improperly accessed and misappropriated its trade secrets. To properly defend themselves against such claims, Defendants need to know what trade secrets they allegedly misappropriated. The description Plaintiff has provided thus far, while enough to survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, gives Defendants little guidance to that end, particularly as a shorter discovery period may demand a more limited, focused inquiry.

Defendants, therefore, have shown diligence and the need for emergency relief. This finding, however, does not mean that the parties may obtain ex parte relief on every pending discovery dispute. Rather, the availability of ex parte relief remains dependent upon the circumstances of the particular discovery issue in dispute. The Court cautions the parties that the burden for obtaining such relief remains high.

B. Defendants Are Entitled to Greater Detail Regarding Plaintiff's Trade Secrets Allegations

This case primarily involves claims that Defendants misappropriated Plaintiff's trade secrets. In Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Amended Complaints, Plaintiff alleged that its trade secrets encompassed the source code for the following functions in its Klutch application: (1) “natural language parsing for times and dates”; (2) “API integrations with Foursquare, Google Places, and other applications”; (3) “synchronization with user calendars, maps, and messages”; and (4) “a novel interface that allowed users to see availability, view a map, see the RSVP list, and look at destination features (such as a restaurant menu) in one place.” (Dkt. No. 57, § 108; Dkt. No. 181, § 108). Plaintiff provided no further clarification.

The district judge has noted that Plaintiff's identification of its trade secrets is “vague” and that greater specificity is necessary. For example, in a status conference with the parties on October 2, 2018, the district judge stated this trade secret description “all sounds very vague,” and he appeared to suggest that Plaintiff be required to respond to an interrogatory to clarify its remaining trade secrets. (See Dkt. No. 196-3, at 11-12). A couple of days later, the district judge issued an Order setting the discovery schedule. (Dkt. No. 175). The Order “again cautioned [Plaintiff] that it must define these trade secrets with greater specificity when conducting discovery,” and noted that the Fourth Amended Complaint's trade secret description “would not create a triable claim under the DTSA.” (Id. at 2).

To this end, on October 15, 2018, Defendants served interrogatories asking Plaintiff to “[d]escribe in detail and with particularity” the alleged trade secrets Plaintiff has identified in this action. (Dkt. No. 196-14, at 6-7 (Interrogatories 1-2 of Defendant StubHub, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff). On November 14, Plaintiff responded by essentially restating the trade secret description from its Fourth and Fifth Amended Complaints, without any further clarification. (Dkt. No. 196-15, at 2-3). Otherwise, Plaintiff objected to the interrogatories as impermissibly seeking expert opinions, and noted that it “expects” that its “trade secret description will be further clarified in connection with expert witness testimony.” (Id.).

On November 26, 2018, the parties met and conferred about Defendants' contention that these interrogatory responses were insufficient, among other matters. (See Dkt. No. 196-16). A few days later, on November 29, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference addressing this matter. (Jacobs Decl. Exh. B). Plaintiff argued that it did not need to provide further detail at this stage, and suggested it could not do so without first conducting discovery. (Id. at 33-36). The Court, however, reasoned that Defendants are “entitled to greater detail” regarding Plaintiff's alleged trade secrets. (Jacobs Decl. Exh. B at 46-47). The Court encouraged the parties to agree on a deadline of two weeks to produce documents and further responses to discovery. (Id. at 56).

*3 Discovery proceeded after the November 29 hearing, giving Plaintiff ample time to provide Defendants with a more specific description. To the extent that Plaintiff contends that it has not done so because it has yet to depose the individual Defendants, and continues to wait for further production, such arguments fail because they are undermined by Plaintiff's own lack of diligence in pursuing discovery. While Plaintiff may have preferred to wait for further document production before deposing individuals that Plaintiff believes have greater knowledge of the disputed trade secrets, that is a luxury that the current schedule does not provide for. There is no legitimate explanation for why Plaintiff failed to depose the individual Defendants in October or November, if Plaintiff needed greater details about its own trade secrets. In addition, Plaintiff fails to explain why certain individuals associated with Plaintiff cannot provide the detail requested by Defendants, nor does Plaintiff explain why it failed to retain an expert in October or even earlier in this case.

Until now, Plaintiff had not moved to compel further production or otherwise sought the Court's intervention on discovery since the November 29 conference, and Plaintiff fails to explain why it did not do so.[2] Other factors, as well, point to Plaintiff's lack of diligence in this matter. In that November 29 conference, for example, Plaintiff admitted that they still had not retained an expert. (Jacobs Decl. Exh. B at 49).

Given the accelerated period for discovery, Plaintiff needed to move quickly to conduct discovery in this case, and to utilize the means at its disposal to do so. Plaintiff cannot rely on its own delay as justification for not responding to very critical interrogatory questions.

Plaintiff's obligation to provide a more detailed trade secrets description here is not rooted solely in an inapplicable California law regarding trade secret identification, as Plaintiff contends. (See Opp. at 3-4). To prepare a defense, a defendant is entitled to reasonable discovery into the nature and basis of the opposing party's claims, and this may well require a more particularized description of the alleged trade secrets at issue. See, e.g., Vendavo, Inc. v. Price f(x) AG, 2018 WL 3655917, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2018) (ordering plaintiff to respond to interrogatory to identify and describe each asserted trade secret, despite plaintiff's attempt to simply rest on the complaint's allegation, because a defendant has a “right to conduct discovery relevant to the allegations in the complaint,” and the plaintiff's complaint did not limit its trade secret claim to only the documents described). Here, the information Defendants seek is critical to their defense, and it should be well within Plaintiff's reach at and motion to compel discovery from the individual defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 211-12). this juncture. Plaintiff must therefore provide it promptly, to enable Defendants a fair opportunity to prepare a defense.

Accordingly, Defendants' Ex Parte Application and Motion to Compel (Dkt. Nos. 203, 204) are GRANTED. A supplemental response to Interrogatories 1 and 2 of Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, providing a more detailed and final trade secrets description, is due no later than ten days from the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

On December 9, 2018, Plaintiff moved to continue the discovery deadline to March 22, 2019 (Dkt. No. 194), but the district judge denied the request on December 13, 2018. (Dkt. No. 200).

The Court notes that on December 20, 2018 – the day after the Court held a telephonic conference regarding Defendants' instant Ex Parte Application and Motion to Compel – Plaintiff filed an ex parte application