Posts

Tauler Smith Wins Terminating Sanctions Motion

Tauler Smith Wins Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Tauler Smith Wins Terminating Sanctions Motion

In a recent employment law matter filed in Los Angeles, Tauler Smith LLP won a motion for terminating sanctions. Los Angeles litigation attorney Wendy Miele represented a media production company that was being sued by a former contractor who worked as a personal assistant for the company. When the plaintiff refused to respond to discovery requests and failed to comply with multiple court orders, our California civil litigators sought an order granting case-terminating sanctions against the plaintiff. Although courts are typically reluctant to approve motions that effectively end a case, the LA County Superior Court judge granted the motion for terminating sanctions and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. This was a major success for attorney Wendy Miele and the rest of the Tauler Smith litigation team.

For additional information about Tauler Smith LLP’s latest legal victory, keep reading.

Los Angeles Employment Lawyers Successfully Represent Company in Misclassification Case

Los Angeles litigator Wendy Miele represented an entertainment production company in an employment law matter. A former personal assistant for the company filed a civil suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that she had been misclassified as an independent contractor instead of as an employee. This is an important distinction because California employment law imposes different requirements on employers based on the classification of workers. The worker’s lawsuit alleged that the company violated the California Labor Code, which protects wage earners and regulates their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. The lawsuit also argued that she was entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees because the alleged misclassification constituted a violation of the unlawful prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which explicitly prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”

Employment cases involving allegations of wage and hour violations are notoriously difficult to win on the defense side, especially at the pre-trial stage. That’s what makes this legal victory particularly noteworthy. In fact, the Tauler Smith LLP legal team has successfully defended three (3) of these cases so far this year. Our experienced California employment defense attorneys have also secured decisive victories for summary judgment in employment law disputes involving qui tam whistleblower claims, allegations of workplace retaliation, and allegations of wrongful termination.

Discovery Misconduct & Terminating Sanctions

The ex-worker in this case was required to produce certain documents in advance of trial, but the court had to intervene because she abused the discovery process by not turning over the requested evidence to opposing counsel. When the plaintiff committed discovery misconduct by continuing to use stall tactics and ultimately failing to provide the necessary discovery evidence in a timely manner as ordered by the court, the California employment attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP took aggressive action by filing a motion for terminating sanctions.

Other types of sanctions that the court could have imposed against the plaintiff for withholding information included issue sanctions, discovery sanctions, evidence sanctions, and contempt sanctions.

Los Angeles Civil Litigation Attorneys Win Motion for Terminating Sanctions

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Los Angeles County Superior Court judge granted the motion. The court found that the plaintiff willfully refused to comply with Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.25, which deals with the case management conference and the settlement conference. The rule stipulates that counsel must serve and file lists of exhibits to be presented at trial, and that this must be done at least five (5) days prior to a final status conference. Failure to comply with Local Rule 3.25 can prompt the court to impose terminating sanctions, which is what happened in this case.

In this recent California employment law matter, the plaintiff failed to produce documents and did not respond adequately to discovery requests. This chronic pattern of delay is why the judge ultimately granted attorney Wendy Miele’s motion for terminating sanctions against the plaintiff. The end result of the Tauler Smith legal team’s aggressive representation of their client is that the opposing party’s complaint has been dismissed with prejudice. This was another successful outcome for Tauler Smith LLP.

After the ruling, Wendy Miele commented on the “salacious” nature of the case. Miele said, “There was a lot of inflammatory mudslinging of a personal nature by the opposing party against Tauler Smith’s client. We seized on the tactical strategy of terminating sanctions, which a court rarely grants but which were appropriate in this case. It was a very satisfying win for our client.

Contact Tauler Smith LLP Today for Legal Help with Your California Employment Claim

The litigation attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP represent both plaintiffs and defendants in California employment claims. Call 310-590-3927 or send an email to schedule a free consultation with one of our experienced litigators.

Trade Secret Defenses

Best Defenses to Trade Secret Claims

Trade Secret Defenses

California and federal trade secret laws are supposed to protect businesses against the unlawful acquisition, use, or disclosure of their proprietary information. But these legal protections can also open the door for the filing of bad faith claims by business owners who may have a grudge against a former employee or a competing company. If you are being sued for trade secret misappropriation, it is important that you speak with an attorney who understands both state and federal intellectual property law and who can advise you on the best defenses to trade secret claims.

To learn about the best defenses that may be available in your California trade secret case, keep reading.

What Defenses Are Available in California Trade Secret Cases?

One of the main ideas behind trade secret laws is that businesses should have a way to prevent others from disclosing and/or using their confidential information. In fact, these laws are so robust and plaintiff-friendly that plaintiffs are often able to win and collect substantial monetary damages. This is one reason why any defendant in a trade secret action should be represented by an experienced California trade secret lawyer who can raise strong defenses on their behalf.

These are just a few of the possible defenses in a California trade secret case:

  1. The information was not a “trade secret.”
  2. The information was not misappropriated.
  3. The defendant had whistleblower immunity.
  4. The statute of limitations expired.

The Information Was Not a “Trade Secret”

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) defines a trade secret as information that is valuable because it cannot be readily ascertained through proper means. A potential defense available in federal trade secret claims filed under the DTSA is that the information was “readily ascertainable” through lawful means. For example, the defendant may be able to show that they acquired the data in material that was published online or in books. This would mean that the information was not confidential since it was, by definition, generally available to others. This exact defense is not available in claims filed under the California trade secrets statute because the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) defines a trade secret more broadly. But it is still possible for a defendant in a CUTSA action to argue that the information does not qualify as a trade secret because it was “generally known to the public.”

A related defense that may be an option in some California trade secret cases is that the plaintiff failed to take sufficient steps to protect their proprietary information. Both the DTSA and the CUTSA require plaintiffs to make reasonable efforts to ensure that their information remains confidential. When the business owner fails to do at least the bare minimum to maintain the secrecy of the information (e.g., imposing restrictions on which employees can potentially access it), then it may not qualify as a “trade secret” under the law.

The Information Was Not Misappropriated

Even if the plaintiff establishes that the information at issue in the case qualifies as a trade secret, the defendant may be able to argue that there was no misappropriation because the information was lawfully acquired. Under both the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), a person or entity is liable for trade secret misappropriation only if the information was acquired through “improper means.” This typically means actions such as theft, espionage, misrepresentation, bribery, or breach of a duty to maintain the secrecy of the information. By contrast, a good example of a lawful action to acquire trade secrets is reverse engineering of a formula or recipe by a rival company. Since this information would have been discovered through publicly available means, it does not violate trade secret law.

The Defendant Had Whistleblower Immunity

When Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), they included provisions that explicitly protect individuals who reveal trade secrets in certain situations. For example, a whistleblower who discloses confidential information to a government official while reporting illegal activity by their employer would be immune from prosecution and from civil liability in a trade secret lawsuit. The same is true for a whistleblower who discloses proprietary information to an attorney in the context of reporting unlawful actions by their employer.

The Statute of Limitations Expired

Defendants in some trade secret cases may be able to raise a defense that the statute of limitations for filing a trade secret claim has expired. In California trade secret actions, the plaintiff has just three (3) years to bring a lawsuit, and the clock starts as soon as the plaintiff has either actual notice of the misappropriation or constructive notice of the misappropriation. (“Constructive notice” means that the plaintiff had reason to investigate and should have discovered the trade secret theft or use.)

Contact the Los Angeles Trade Secret Litigation Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

If you have been accused of misappropriating a company’s trade secrets by disclosing information to a competitor or using information without permission, you are going to want a skilled attorney assisting you. The Los Angeles trade secret attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP have extensive experience representing defendants in California trade secret lawsuits, and we are prepared to help you raise strong defenses to win at trial or get the claim dismissed before trial.

Call us at 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free consultation.

Defend Trade Secrets Act

What Is the Defend Trade Secrets Act?

Defend Trade Secrets Act

Trade secrets protect the things that make a business unique, and trade secrets themselves are protected by both federal and state laws. California trade secret lawyers are often asked, “What is the Defend Trade Secrets Act?” The Defend Trade Secrets Act is a federal law that applies to any trade secrets related to products or services used in interstate commerce. The statute also applies to trade secrets used internationally. It is an important tool for anyone who needs to take legal action to protect their confidential or proprietary information.

To learn more about the Defend Trade Secrets Act, keep reading this blog.

Federal Law Protects Businesses Against Trade Secret Misappropriation

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act was passed by the United States Congress and codified into law in 2016. The statute is an important tool in intellectual property claims, particularly for business owners who believe that an ex-employee or business competitor has used their trade secrets without authorization or permission. The idea behind the Defend Trade Secrets Act is that trade secret owners should have a way to safeguard their trade secrets against theft or misappropriation. For example, the Defend Trade Secrets Act makes it unlawful for an ex-employee to solicit their former employer’s customers.

Importantly, the Defend Trade Secrets Act does not preempt state laws. For example, a victim of trade secret theft in California may choose to file a lawsuit under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA). An experienced intellectual property lawyer can help you decide which statute and venue will be most favorable to your case.

What Is the Definition of “Trade Secret Misappropriation”?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) defines a “trade secret” as any information that has independent economic value because it is not generally known, has value to others who do not have access to the information, and is subject to efforts to maintain its secrecy.

Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, protected information can include “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing.” The DTSA’s broad definition of “trade secret” gives businesses wide latitude when seeking legal protection for their proprietary information. For California business owners, it can sometimes be advantageous to file suit in federal court under the DTSA instead of suing in state court under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).

How Do You Establish a Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act?

Certain acts can give rise to a legal claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. These acts of misappropriation include the following:

  • Acquisition of a trade secret through improper means.
  • Disclosure of a trade secret by someone who used improper means to acquire the information.
  • Disclosure of a trade secret by someone who had reason to know that the information was acquired improperly.
  • Disclosure of a trade secret by someone who knew that the information had been acquired by accident or mistake.

If you believe that someone is using your trade secrets without authorization, the experienced Los Angeles trade secret attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can assist you. Our California intellectual property team will evaluate the facts of your case and help you determine whether your legal claim should be filed under federal law or state law.

What Remedies Are Available to Plaintiffs in DTSA Cases?

One unique remedy available to plaintiffs in DTSA cases is civil seizure. This allows the court to order the seizure of property to prevent the dissemination of the trade secret at issue in the case. Moreover, this order may be issued prior to a resolution in the case, which means that courts can act quickly to stop a potential infringement of trade secrets while the matter is still being adjudicated. Civil seizure is only supposed to be an option for plaintiffs in “extraordinary circumstances.”

Additionally, the most common trade secret remedies available to plaintiffs in DTSA cases include the following:

  • Actual damages to compensate the plaintiff for trade secret misappropriation that has already occurred.
  • Exemplary or punitive damages if the trade secret was “willfully and maliciously misappropriated.”
  • An injunction to protect the trade secret.
  • Payment of a royalty to the plaintiff when future use of the trade secret is inevitable.
  • Attorney’s fees.

Trademark & Patent Claims

Additionally, trade secret claims filed under the Defend Trade Secrets Act may be accompanied by trademark infringement claims and patent infringement claims on related matters and/or IP assets. These other legal claims can provide plaintiffs in trade secret cases with additional remedies.

The Economic Espionage Act of 1996

The Defend Trade Secrets Act is a companion to the Economic Espionage Act, which imposes criminal penalties against individuals who reveal trade secrets to foreign entities, such as a foreign government, business, or agent. When someone commits trade secret theft in violation of the Economic Espionage Act, they may be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

DTSA Exception for Whistleblowers

Congress made sure to carve out an exception for certain whistleblowers who reveal trade secrets to the government. That’s why the Defend Trade Secrets Act provides corporate whistleblowers with legal protection in the form of legal immunity from criminal prosecution. Whistleblowers are also immune from civil liability under either federal or state laws, if they meet certain conditions such as disclosing the trade secret to a government official.

Importantly, the Defend Trade Secrets Act also requires companies to let their employees know about these whistleblower immunity provisions. If a company fails to inform employees through employment manuals, policies, or contracts, then the company may no longer be eligible to pursue punitive damages and attorney’s fees if there is a DTSA lawsuit at a later date.

Contact the California Trade Secret Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Tauler Smith LLP is a California law firm that helps business owners and individuals protect their intellectual property rights, including trade secrets. Our Los Angeles trade secret lawyers routinely represent both plaintiffs and defendants in U.S. District Court, and we know what it takes to win these cases. Contact us today by calling 310-590-3927 or sending an email.

TruConnect Summary Judgment

Firm Wins Summary Judgment in Qui Tam Employment Claim

TruConnect Summary Judgment

The California employment defense attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP recently served as co-counsel with Greenberg Traurig to represent TruConnect in a retaliation and wrongful termination case. The firm secured a decisive victory in the case by persuading a U.S. District Court to grant a motion for summary judgment. This means that the workplace retaliation & wrongful termination claims were thrown out at the summary judgment stage without the need for oral argument.

The court’s decision can be read in its entirety here. To learn more about Tauler Smith’s victory in the qui tam employment claim, keep reading this blog.

Los Angeles Employment Attorney Robert Tauler Serves as Co-Counsel for TruConnect

TruConnect Communications, Inc. is a wireless and telecommunications company that provides cell phone service and mobile data plans in the United States, including a partnership with the federal government on the Lifeline Program that subsidizes low-income families with free wireless service. Los Angeles employment attorney Robert Tauler of Tauler Smith LLP worked with the lawyers at Greenberg Traurig to represent TruConnect at several different stages of a qui tam employment retaliation action.

The legal action began when two former employees of Sage Telecom, Inc. filed a qui tam whistleblower claim with the federal government after their positions at the company were eliminated due to significant market contractions. Attorney Robert Tauler was initially hired to defend two of TruConnect’s individual CEOs against the ex-employees’ allegations of qui tam whistleblower retaliation, and he successfully got that part of the case dismissed within a few months. Mr. Tauler was subsequently brought on as co-counsel in the larger employment action involving TruConnect, and now that case has also concluded with Mr. Tauler helping to win a court ruling on behalf of the telecom company.

District Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in California False Claims Act Case

The employment retaliation case was heard in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Despite having already lost their qui tam whistleblower claim involving TruConnect, the former employees still argued that they were entitled to damages for retaliation and wrongful termination. These claims were filed under three statutes:

  1. False Claims Act (alleging retaliation)
  2. California False Claims Act (alleging retaliation)
  3. California Labor Code (alleging wrongful termination)

On June 21, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granted a motion for summary judgment that effectively ended the case by dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims of retaliation and wrongful termination. The court stated that TruConnect was entitled to judgment “as a matter of law,” which meant that there was no need to proceed to trial.

Los Angeles Litigator Robert Tauler Wins Cases for Clients in California State and Federal Courts

The TruConnect qui tam retaliation case represents another huge victory for Tauler Smith LLP. Attorney Robert Tauler and the other skilled members of the firm’s litigation team have earned the respect of their peers in the legal community, including judges, opposing attorneys, and legal experts. Whether it’s an employment matter, an intellectual property claim, or a business dispute, our lawyers always prepare every case with the expectation that it will go to trial. This gives us a significant advantage during the pre-trial stages, and it puts our clients in the best possible position to win.

Contact the California Employment Defense Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

The attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP have extensive experience handling California employment claims. We represent both plaintiffs and defendants, and our litigators know how to file successful motions for summary judgment in federal and state courts. If you are involved in litigation, the Tauler Smith LLP legal team can help you. Call 310-590-3927 or fill out the online contact form to schedule a free consultation.