Pub. 9 2019 Issue 2

15 ISSUE 2. 2019 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INST. (Jan. 17, 2018), https://insights. sei.cmu.edu/insider-threat/2018/01/2017-us-state-of-cybercrime- highlights.html. 6 John Balitis & Cameron Johnson, What Are Trade Secrets and Why Are They Important? ARIZ. ATT’Y, Jan. 2017, at 25, http:// www.azattorneymag-digital.com/azattorneymag/201701?p - g=25#pg25. 7 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (em - phasis added). 8 Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58, 63 (App. 1990) (emphasis added). 9 Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶ 6 (2008) (citation omitted). 10 5:16-CV-00141-TBR, 2017 WL 741569, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 24, 2017). 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 48(b). 12 A.R.S. § 21-102(C). 13 See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1). 14 See, e.g., Hydrogen Master Rights Ltd. v. Weston, 228 F. Supp. 3d 320, 337–38 (D. Del. 2017); Marimar Textiles, Inc. v. Jude Clothing & Accessories Corp., CV 17-2900 (JLL), 2017 WL 4391748, at *7 (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2017). 15 228 F. Supp. 3d 320, 338; cf. Marimar Textiles, 2017 WL 4391748, at *7 (holding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a nexus between the violation and interstate commerce where plaintiff alleged that defendants improperly used plaintiff’s trade secrets to create infringing goods, which were meant to be sold, at the very least, throughout the United States). 16 228 F. Supp. 3d 320, 338 (emphasis added) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1)). 17 Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Nealey, 262 F. Supp. 3d 153, 172–73 (E.D. Pa. 2017); see also Grow Fin. Fed. Credit Union v. GTE Fed. Credit Union, 8:17-CV-1239-T-30JSS, 2017 WL 3492707, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2017) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1)) (“The [DTSA] vests federal courts with original jurisdiction to decide civil cases involving misappropriation of trade secrets as long as ‘the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.’”). 18 262 F. Supp. 3d 153, 173. 19 Id. at 172–73 (emphasis in original) (quoting H.R. REP. NO. 114–529, at 9 (2016)). 20 Id. 21 Complete Logistical Services LLC v. Rulh, CV 18-3799, 2018 WL 4963571, at *6 (E.D. La. Oct. 15, 2018); Wells Lamont Industry Group LLC v. Richard Mendoza and Radians Inc., No. 17-1136, 2017 WL 3235682, *3 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 31, 2017). 22 2018 WL 4963571, at *6. 23 Id. 24 2017 WL 3235682, at *3. 25 Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, PL 114-153, May 11, 2016, 130 Stat. 376. 26 No. 15-CV-02177-SI, 2017 WL 1436044, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5)). 27 Id. 28 No. 8:16-CV-1503-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 5391394, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2016). 29 No. 16-CV-03737-JCS, 2017 WL 412524, at *8–9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017). 30 Id. at *9. 31See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(i). 32 Id. 33 Id. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). 34 See, e.g., OOO Brunswick Rail Mgmt. v. Sultanov, 5:17-CV-00017- EJD, 2017 WL 67119, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017) (finding seizure under the DTSA unnecessary because the court would, instead, order the defendant to deliver the misappropriated devices to the court and would further order that, in the meantime, the defendant may not access or modify the devices). 35 See, e.g., Solar Connect LLC v. Endicott, 2:17-CV-1235, 2018 WL 2386066, at *2 (D. Utah Apr. 6, 2018) (ordering ex parte seizure where the defendants had a high level of computer technical profi - ciency, there had been attempts by defendants in the past to delete information from computers, defendants had shown a willingness to provide false and misleading information, and to hide information and move computer files); Axis Steel Detailing Inc. v. Prilex Detail - ing LLC, 2:17-CV-00428-JNP, 2017 WL 8947964, at *2 (D. Utah June 29, 2017) (same). 36 See, e.g., Solar Connect, 2018 WL 2386066, at *2; Axis Steel Detailing, 2017 WL 8947964, at *2. 37 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b). 38 Id. 39 220 F. Supp. 3d 143 (D. Mass. 2016). 40 Id. at 147. 41 Id. 42 No. CV 16-963, 2018 WL 1532849 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2018). 43 Id. at *5. 44 See e.g., Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 101 Cal. App. 4th 1443, 1458, 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277, 290 (2002). 45 Id. 46 See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(I). 47 Id. 48 16 C 03545, 2017 WL 1954531, at *5–*7 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2017). 49 Id. at *7. 50 Id. 51 See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(I). 52 See UCAR Tech. (USA) Inc. v. Yan Li, 5:17-CV-01704-EJD, 2017 WL 6405620, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017), on reconsideration, 5:17-CV-01704-EJD, 2018 WL 2555429 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2018). 53 Id. 54 Id. (citing Whyte, 101 Cal. App. 4th at 1447, 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 281). 55 Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C., 213 Ariz. 24, 26, ¶ 8 (2006). 56 Id. (emphasis added) (quotation omitted) (citing 15 Corbin on Contracts § 80.15 (2003) (noting that in determining the enforce - ability of such a provision, “reasonableness is the North Star”)).