Preview
Stephen H. Sutro (SBN 172168)
Suzanne R. Fogarty (SBN 154319)
Meghan C. Killian (SBN 310195)
Duane Morris LLP
One Market Plaza
Spear Tower, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415.957.3000
Fax: 415.957.3001
E-mail: | SHSutro@DuaneMorris.com
SRFogarty@DuaneMorris.com
MCKillian@DuaneMorris.com
Brad Thompson (admitted pro hac vice)
Bert Greene (admitted pro hac vice)
Duane Morris LLP
Las Cimas IV
900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746-5435
Tel: 512.277.2300
Fax: 512.277.2301
E-mail: BThompson@DuaneMorris.com
BGreene@DuaneMorris.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SUNPOWER CORPORATION
Electronically Filed
by Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara,
on 8/14/2020 9:57 PM
Reviewed By: R. Tien
Case #19CV349042
Envelope: 4770407
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
SUNPOWER CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN DEBONO; STANDARD
INDUSTRIES INC.; GAF ENERGY; and
DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
Case No. 19-CV-349042
PLAINTIFF SUNPOWER CORPORATION’S
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN
DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Date: TBD
Time: TBD
Dept: 21
Judge: Hon. Thang N. Barrett
Complaint Filed: June 14, 2019
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1Plaintiff SunPower Corporation (“SunPower”) submits this Separate Statement of Items in
Dispute in support of its Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. SunPower will address
Standard’s written discovery responses in the following order: (1) Requests for Admission; (2)
Form Interrogatories; (3) Special Interrogatories; and (4) Requests for Production:!
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Standard makes the following General Objections to the Requests. These General Objections
are incorporated by reference into each of the specific responses ("Response" or "Responses") to
each numbered Request. The assertion of the same or additional objections to any particular
individual Request does not waive other General Objections, as set forth below, that are not
specifically repeated in the Responses. Standard provides these objections without waiving, or
intending to waive, but on the contrary preserving, and intending to preserve: (i) the right to object,
on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevance or materiality, or any other proper grounds, to
the use of these Responses for any purpose, in whole or in part, in any subsequent stage or
proceeding in this action; and (ii) the right to object on any and all grounds, at any time, to other
discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the Requests to which Standard
has responded herein.
1. As further addressed in Standard's and GAF Energy, Inc.'s ("GAF Energy") July 9, 2019
Motion to Quash Discovery Requests ("Motion to Quash"), Standard objects to each
Request on the grounds that, pursuant to California statute, SunPower is currently
prohibited from commencing any discovery as it has failed to comply with California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210, which requires that "before commencing
discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall
identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 2019.210;
| The Court’s April 21, 2020 Order on SunPower’s prior motion to compel indicated that SunPower’s motion to compel responses to
its document demand served with its deposition notice on Defendant Martin DeBono was premature. SunPower reserves its rights
to compel compliance if Mr. DeBono fails to comply with its deposition notice once the stay is lifted.
2
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1see also Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 834-35
(2005).
Standard objects to each Request based upon SunPower's failure to allege sufficient facts
to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under the California Uniform Trade
Secrets Act ("CUTSA"). Unless and until SunPower provides such facts, any discovery is
premature.
Standard objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to impose any
requirement or discovery obligations beyond those required by the California Code of
Civil Procedure and the applicable rules and orders of the Court.
Standard objects to the Requests to the extent that the information sought is obtainable
from other sources that are more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code§ 2019.030(a)(1).
Standard objects to the Requests on the grounds and to the extent that Standard has not
completed its factual investigation. Moreover, information that may be responsive to the
Requests may not yet have been discovered.
Standard objects to each Request to the extent it seeks the discovery of information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product
doctrine, the consulting expert privilege, the self-critical analysis privilege, and/or any
other privileges or immunities recognized by law ("Privileged Information"). Any
undertakings to make information available should be understood specifically to exclude
Privileged Information.
Standard objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require Standard to
reach legal conclusions.
Standard objects to each Request to the extent it seeks discovery from separate
Defendant GAF Energy. GAF Energy is a separate and distinct corporate entity from
Standard. If SunPower seeks responses to requests for admission from GAF Energy, it
should serve requests for admission on GAF Energy.
3
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-3490429. Standard objects to the Requests to the extent that they either assume the existence of
facts that Standard disputes or constitute an inaccurate characterization of the facts.
Standard does not hereby admit, adopt or acquiesce in any factual or legal contention,
assertion, characterization, or implication in the Requests.
10. Standard objects to the Requests to the extent the definitions of "DEFENDANT,"
"YOU" or "YOUR" are overbroad and unduly burdensome, particularly to the extent that
they purport to include persons who are not named as Defendants in this action, and all
"former officers, executives, partners, directors, trustees, employees, attorneys, agents,
representatives, parent corporations, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions (including GAF
ENERGY), predecessors and successors-in-interest, companies under their direct
management control, and all other PERSONS or entities acting or purporting to act on its
behalf unbounded in time. In particular, GAF Energy is a separate and distinct corporate
entity from Standard, and is also a Defendant in this action. If SunPower seeks answers t
these Requests from GAF Energy, it should serve requests for admission on GAF Energy]
Standard will not be responding on behalf of GAF Energy in response to these Requests.
11. Standard objects to the Requests based on the definition of "PLAINTIFF" because it is
overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes "parent corporations,
subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors and successors-in-interest, companies
under their direct management control, and all other PERSONS or entities acting or
purporting to act on its behalf which SunPower would be in a position to list, but does
not do so.
12. Standard objects to the Requests to the extent the definitions of "GAF ENERGY" or
"GAF" are overbroad and unduly burdensome, particularly to the extent that they purport
to include persons and entities who are not named as Defendants in this action and all
"former officers, executives, partners, directors, trustees, employees, attorneys, agents,
representatives, parent corporations, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors and
successors-in-interest, companies under their direct management control, and all other
PERSONS or entities acting or purporting to act on its behalf unbounded in time.
4
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1REASONS TO STRIKE/OVERRULE STANDARD’S GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Standard’s general objection that SunPower is currently prohibited from commencing any
discovery because it has not complied with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 (Ҥ
2019.210”) is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret
Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the
SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues
raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Declaration of Suzanne R. Fogarty (“Fogarty
Decl.”), Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court
(“Advanced Modular”) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what
is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].)
SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie
and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case.
(See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th
133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide substantive
responses. (Fogarty Decl., 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide substantive responses,
subject to objections regarding scope and privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower
reserves its rights to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional
disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other general objections.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Admit that at the time Jason Pollack sent his August 1, 2018 letter to SUNPOWER stating
that “we prohibit our employees from using confidential information belonging to past employers
and we are unaware of either Mr. DeBono or Rob Lahey engaging in any conduct that violates that
policy,” YOU had not conducted a search of STANDARD’S networks, computers, and devices for
SUNPOWER DOCUMENTS.
I
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in
the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret
designation that complies with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 (“Section
2019.210”). Standard further specifically objects to this Request based on SunPower’s failure to
allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under
CUTSA.
Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the
disclosure of Privileged Information.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
6
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1response. (Fogarty Decl., §|41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves
its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes
that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
Admit that at the time Jason Pollack sent his January 22, 2019 letter to Stephen Sutro
stating that “we also have no reason to believe that Messrs. DeBono, Killette, Lahey, or Robinson
have any SunPower information or property, including (without limitation) confidential proprietary
or trade secret information, in their possession” and “we are committed to taking all reasonable
measures to ensure that our employees remain in compliance with those agreements” YOU had not
conducted a search of STANDARD’s networks, computers, and devices for SUNPOWER
DOCUMENTS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in
the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret
designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this
Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade
secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the
disclosure of Privileged Information.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
7
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
vy. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
response. (Fogarty Decl., 441.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves
its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes
that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
Admit that at the time STANDARD’s counsel, Wendy Brenner, sent her April 22, 2019
letter to Stephen Sutro stating that “[a]s regards to Mr. DeBono in particular, it appears that
SunPower is concerned that he has retained SunPower information and that such information now
resides on Standard devices. We have no reason to believe that is the case [...],”” YOU had not
conducted a search of STANDARD’s networks, computers, and devices for SUNPOWER
DOCUMENTS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in
the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret
designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this
Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade
8
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the
disclosure of Privileged Information.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
response. (Fogarty Decl., 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves
its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes
that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
Admit that as of June 14, 2019, the filing of this lawsuit, YOU had not conducted a search
of STANDARD’s networks, computers, and devices for SUNPOWER DOCUMENTS.
9
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in
the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret
designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this
Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade
secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the
disclosure of Privileged Information.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.¢., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
response. (Fogarty Decl., 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
10
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves
its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes
that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
Admit that YOU have not conducted a search of STANDARD’s networks, computers, and
devices for SUNPOWER DOCUMENTS.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in
the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret
designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this
Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade
secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the
disclosure of Privileged Information.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
ul
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
response. (Fogarty Decl., 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves
its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes
that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
Admit that GAF ENERGY is a competitor of SUNPOWER.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in
the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret
designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this
Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade
secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
Standard also specifically objects that the term “competitor” is vague, ambiguous, and
undefined, creating a lack of particularity in the Request such that Standard cannot determine what
is being requested.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
12
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
vy. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
response. (Fogarty Decl., 441.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
subject to objections regarding scope, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its
right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that
may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
Admit that DEBONO’s assurance to STANDARD that he is and will remain in compliance
with his “obligations to SunPower” and his representation to STANDARD that he “returned all
SunPower documents and property” described in STANDARD’s counsel, Wendy Brenner’s,
February 1, 2019 letter to SUNPOWER’s counsel were false.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in
the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret
designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this
Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade
secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
Standard further specifically objects to this Request because it lacks knowledge, such that
13
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1the Request calls for information outside of Standard’s possession, custody, or control.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
response. (Fogarty Decl., 441.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
subject to objections regarding scope, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its
right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that
may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
Admit that the assurance set forth in STANDARD’s counsel, Wendy Brenner’s, February
28, 2019 letter to SUNPOWER’s counsel that “[a]ll of the former SunPower employees have
assured Standard that they are and will remain in compliance with their obligations to SunPower”
was false as to DEBONO.
14
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in
the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret
designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this
Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade
secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the
disclosure of Privileged Information.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.¢., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
response. (Fogarty Decl., 441.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
15
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves
its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes
that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
FORM INTERROGATORIES
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Standard makes the following General Objections to the Form Interrogatories. These General
Objections are incorporated by reference into each of the specific responses ("Response" or
"Responses") to each numbered Form Interrogatory. The assertion of the same or additional
objections to any particular individual Form Interrogatory does not waive other General Objections,
as set forth below, that are not specifically repeated in the Responses. Standard provides these
objections without waiving, or intending to waive, but on the contrary preserving, and intending to
preserve: (i) the right to object, on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevance or materiality, or
any other proper grounds, to the use of these Responses for any purpose, in whole or in part, in any
subsequent stage or proceeding in this action; and (ii) the right to object on any and all grounds, at
any time, to other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the Form
Interrogatories to which Standard has responded herein.
1. As further addressed in Standard's and GAF Energy, Inc.'s ("GAF Energy") July 19, 2019
Motion to Quash Discovery Requests ("Motion to Quash"), Standard objects to each Form]
Interrogatory on the grounds that, pursuant to California statute, SunPower is currentl
prohibited from commencing any discovery as it has failed to comply with California Code off
Civil Procedure section 2019.210, which requires that "before commencing discovery relating!
to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with]
reasonable 24 particularity." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 2019.210; see also Advanced Modulai
Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 834-35 (2005).
2. Standard objects to each Form Interrogatory based upon SunPower's failure to allege sufficient]
facts to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under the California Uniform Trade
16
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1Secrets Act ("CUTSA"). Unless and until SunPower provides such facts, any discovery is
premature.
3. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to impose an
requirement or discovery obligations beyond those required by the California Code of Civi
Procedure and the applicable rules and orders of the Court.
4. Standard objects to each Form Interrogatory to the extent it seeks the discovery of information]
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine.
the consulting expert privilege, the self-critical analysis privilege, and/or any other privileges
or immunities recognized by law ("Privileged Information"). Any undertakings to make
information available should be understood specifically to exclude Privileged Information.
5. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that the information sought is
obtainable from other sources that are more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive]
See Ca
. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.030(a)(1).
6. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories on the ground and to the extent that Standard has
not completed its factual investigation. Moreover, information that may be responsive to the
Form Interrogatories may not yet have been discovered.
7. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require Standard
to reach legal conclusions.
8. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they either assume the existence
of facts that Standard disputes or constitute an inaccurate characterization of the facts. Standard
does not hereby admit, adopt or acquiesce in any factual or legal contention, assertion]
characterization, or implication in the Form Interrogatories.
9. Standard objects to the Definition of "INCIDENT" on the grounds that it uses the for
definition, which is "the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, o1
other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding." This form]
definition is inapplicable to the Complaint, which purports to be based on multiple occurrences
and events involving different defendants over an extended period of time. Standard canno
17
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1determine which "accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract" this definition ig
referring to.
REASONS TO STRIKE/OVERRULE STANDARD’S GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Standard’s general objection that SunPower is currently prohibited from commencing any
discovery because it has not complied with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 (Ҥ
2019.210”) is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret
Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the
SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues
raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g.,
Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’’) (2005) 132
Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just
and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to
ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for
ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132
Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide substantive
responses. (Fogarty Decl., § 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide substantive responses,
subject to objections regarding scope and privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower
reserves its rights to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional
disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other general objections.
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1
State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON
who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not
identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.)
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Form Interrogatory. Standard specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on
18
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Form Interrogatory is improper until
SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with California Code of Civil
Procedure section 2019.210 (“Section 2019.210”). Standard further specifically objects to this
Form Interrogatory based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to
constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
Standard will respond to this Form Interrogatory.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
response. (Fogarty Decl., §|41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
subject to objections regarding scope and privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower
reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional
disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
19
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1
At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which
you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability
coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of
the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state:
(a) the kind of coverage;
(b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company;
(c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured;
(d) the policy number;
(e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; whether
any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and the insurance
company; and
(g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy.
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Form Interrogatory. Standard specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on
the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Form Interrogatory is improper until
SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard
further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory based on SunPower’s failure to allege
sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
Standard further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and uncertain in its use of the term “INCIDENT.” The form definition of
“INCIDENT” is inapplicable to the Complaint, which purports to be based on multiple occurrences
and events involving different defendants over an extended period of time. Standard cannot
determine which “accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract” this definition is
referring to.
20
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Form Interrogatory.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020
Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc.
v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable
particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the
circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries
within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of
appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia
v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.)
During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is
relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive
response. (Fogarty Decl., § 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response,
subject to objections regarding scope, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its
right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that
may arise regarding Standard’s other objections.
FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1
State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual:
(a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after
the INCIDENT;
(b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT;
21
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\11323345.1(c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the
scene; and
(d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of
the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034).
RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1
Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific
Objections to this Form Interrogatory. Standard specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on
the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Form Interrogatory is improper until
SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard
further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory based on SunPower’s failure to allege
sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA.
Standard further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
ambiguous, and uncertain in its use of the term “INCIDENT.” The form definition of
“INCIDENT” is inapplicable to the Complaint, which purports to be based on multiple occurrences
and events involving different defendants over an extended period of time. Standard cannot
determine which “accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract” this definition is
referring to.
Standard further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on the grounds that it is
vague, ambiguous, and unclear as to the term “scene,” as it pertains to the allegations in
SunPower’s Complaint.
If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation,
subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss
narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Form Interrogatory.
REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE:
Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a
trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid.
On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which
identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained
22
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042
DM1\1
Preview
Stephen H. Sutro (SBN 172168) Suzanne R. Fogarty (SBN 154319) Meghan C. Killian (SBN 310195) Duane Morris LLP One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415.957.3000 Fax: 415.957.3001 E-mail: | SHSutro@DuaneMorris.com SRFogarty@DuaneMorris.com MCKillian@DuaneMorris.com Brad Thompson (admitted pro hac vice) Bert Greene (admitted pro hac vice) Duane Morris LLP Las Cimas IV 900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746-5435 Tel: 512.277.2300 Fax: 512.277.2301 E-mail: BThompson@DuaneMorris.com BGreene@DuaneMorris.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, SUNPOWER CORPORATION Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 8/14/2020 9:57 PM Reviewed By: R. Tien Case #19CV349042 Envelope: 4770407 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN DEBONO; STANDARD INDUSTRIES INC.; GAF ENERGY; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. Case No. 19-CV-349042 PLAINTIFF SUNPOWER CORPORATION’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES Date: TBD Time: TBD Dept: 21 Judge: Hon. Thang N. Barrett Complaint Filed: June 14, 2019 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1Plaintiff SunPower Corporation (“SunPower”) submits this Separate Statement of Items in Dispute in support of its Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. SunPower will address Standard’s written discovery responses in the following order: (1) Requests for Admission; (2) Form Interrogatories; (3) Special Interrogatories; and (4) Requests for Production:! SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ITEMS IN DISPUTE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION GENERAL OBJECTIONS Standard makes the following General Objections to the Requests. These General Objections are incorporated by reference into each of the specific responses ("Response" or "Responses") to each numbered Request. The assertion of the same or additional objections to any particular individual Request does not waive other General Objections, as set forth below, that are not specifically repeated in the Responses. Standard provides these objections without waiving, or intending to waive, but on the contrary preserving, and intending to preserve: (i) the right to object, on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevance or materiality, or any other proper grounds, to the use of these Responses for any purpose, in whole or in part, in any subsequent stage or proceeding in this action; and (ii) the right to object on any and all grounds, at any time, to other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the Requests to which Standard has responded herein. 1. As further addressed in Standard's and GAF Energy, Inc.'s ("GAF Energy") July 9, 2019 Motion to Quash Discovery Requests ("Motion to Quash"), Standard objects to each Request on the grounds that, pursuant to California statute, SunPower is currently prohibited from commencing any discovery as it has failed to comply with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210, which requires that "before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 2019.210; | The Court’s April 21, 2020 Order on SunPower’s prior motion to compel indicated that SunPower’s motion to compel responses to its document demand served with its deposition notice on Defendant Martin DeBono was premature. SunPower reserves its rights to compel compliance if Mr. DeBono fails to comply with its deposition notice once the stay is lifted. 2 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1see also Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 834-35 (2005). Standard objects to each Request based upon SunPower's failure to allege sufficient facts to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA"). Unless and until SunPower provides such facts, any discovery is premature. Standard objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to impose any requirement or discovery obligations beyond those required by the California Code of Civil Procedure and the applicable rules and orders of the Court. Standard objects to the Requests to the extent that the information sought is obtainable from other sources that are more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 2019.030(a)(1). Standard objects to the Requests on the grounds and to the extent that Standard has not completed its factual investigation. Moreover, information that may be responsive to the Requests may not yet have been discovered. Standard objects to each Request to the extent it seeks the discovery of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the consulting expert privilege, the self-critical analysis privilege, and/or any other privileges or immunities recognized by law ("Privileged Information"). Any undertakings to make information available should be understood specifically to exclude Privileged Information. Standard objects to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require Standard to reach legal conclusions. Standard objects to each Request to the extent it seeks discovery from separate Defendant GAF Energy. GAF Energy is a separate and distinct corporate entity from Standard. If SunPower seeks responses to requests for admission from GAF Energy, it should serve requests for admission on GAF Energy. 3 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-3490429. Standard objects to the Requests to the extent that they either assume the existence of facts that Standard disputes or constitute an inaccurate characterization of the facts. Standard does not hereby admit, adopt or acquiesce in any factual or legal contention, assertion, characterization, or implication in the Requests. 10. Standard objects to the Requests to the extent the definitions of "DEFENDANT," "YOU" or "YOUR" are overbroad and unduly burdensome, particularly to the extent that they purport to include persons who are not named as Defendants in this action, and all "former officers, executives, partners, directors, trustees, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, parent corporations, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions (including GAF ENERGY), predecessors and successors-in-interest, companies under their direct management control, and all other PERSONS or entities acting or purporting to act on its behalf unbounded in time. In particular, GAF Energy is a separate and distinct corporate entity from Standard, and is also a Defendant in this action. If SunPower seeks answers t these Requests from GAF Energy, it should serve requests for admission on GAF Energy] Standard will not be responding on behalf of GAF Energy in response to these Requests. 11. Standard objects to the Requests based on the definition of "PLAINTIFF" because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes "parent corporations, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors and successors-in-interest, companies under their direct management control, and all other PERSONS or entities acting or purporting to act on its behalf which SunPower would be in a position to list, but does not do so. 12. Standard objects to the Requests to the extent the definitions of "GAF ENERGY" or "GAF" are overbroad and unduly burdensome, particularly to the extent that they purport to include persons and entities who are not named as Defendants in this action and all "former officers, executives, partners, directors, trustees, employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, parent corporations, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors and successors-in-interest, companies under their direct management control, and all other PERSONS or entities acting or purporting to act on its behalf unbounded in time. 4 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1REASONS TO STRIKE/OVERRULE STANDARD’S GENERAL OBJECTIONS Standard’s general objection that SunPower is currently prohibited from commencing any discovery because it has not complied with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 (“§ 2019.210”) is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Declaration of Suzanne R. Fogarty (“Fogarty Decl.”), Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular”) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide substantive responses. (Fogarty Decl., 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide substantive responses, subject to objections regarding scope and privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its rights to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other general objections. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that at the time Jason Pollack sent his August 1, 2018 letter to SUNPOWER stating that “we prohibit our employees from using confidential information belonging to past employers and we are unaware of either Mr. DeBono or Rob Lahey engaging in any conduct that violates that policy,” YOU had not conducted a search of STANDARD’S networks, computers, and devices for SUNPOWER DOCUMENTS. I PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 (“Section 2019.210”). Standard further specifically objects to this Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the disclosure of Privileged Information. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive 6 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1response. (Fogarty Decl., §|41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that at the time Jason Pollack sent his January 22, 2019 letter to Stephen Sutro stating that “we also have no reason to believe that Messrs. DeBono, Killette, Lahey, or Robinson have any SunPower information or property, including (without limitation) confidential proprietary or trade secret information, in their possession” and “we are committed to taking all reasonable measures to ensure that our employees remain in compliance with those agreements” YOU had not conducted a search of STANDARD’s networks, computers, and devices for SUNPOWER DOCUMENTS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the disclosure of Privileged Information. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which 7 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. vy. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive response. (Fogarty Decl., 441.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that at the time STANDARD’s counsel, Wendy Brenner, sent her April 22, 2019 letter to Stephen Sutro stating that “[a]s regards to Mr. DeBono in particular, it appears that SunPower is concerned that he has retained SunPower information and that such information now resides on Standard devices. We have no reason to believe that is the case [...],”” YOU had not conducted a search of STANDARD’s networks, computers, and devices for SUNPOWER DOCUMENTS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade 8 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the disclosure of Privileged Information. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive response. (Fogarty Decl., 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that as of June 14, 2019, the filing of this lawsuit, YOU had not conducted a search of STANDARD’s networks, computers, and devices for SUNPOWER DOCUMENTS. 9 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the disclosure of Privileged Information. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.¢., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive response. (Fogarty Decl., 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, 10 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Admit that YOU have not conducted a search of STANDARD’s networks, computers, and devices for SUNPOWER DOCUMENTS. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the disclosure of Privileged Information. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries ul PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive response. (Fogarty Decl., 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that GAF ENERGY is a competitor of SUNPOWER. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard also specifically objects that the term “competitor” is vague, ambiguous, and undefined, creating a lack of particularity in the Request such that Standard cannot determine what is being requested. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which 12 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. vy. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive response. (Fogarty Decl., 441.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, subject to objections regarding scope, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that DEBONO’s assurance to STANDARD that he is and will remain in compliance with his “obligations to SunPower” and his representation to STANDARD that he “returned all SunPower documents and property” described in STANDARD’s counsel, Wendy Brenner’s, February 1, 2019 letter to SUNPOWER’s counsel were false. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard further specifically objects to this Request because it lacks knowledge, such that 13 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1the Request calls for information outside of Standard’s possession, custody, or control. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive response. (Fogarty Decl., 441.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, subject to objections regarding scope, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Admit that the assurance set forth in STANDARD’s counsel, Wendy Brenner’s, February 28, 2019 letter to SUNPOWER’s counsel that “[a]ll of the former SunPower employees have assured Standard that they are and will remain in compliance with their obligations to SunPower” was false as to DEBONO. 14 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Request. Standard specifically objects to this Request on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Request is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this Request based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard further specifically objects to the Request on the grounds that it seeks the disclosure of Privileged Information. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Request. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.¢., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive response. (Fogarty Decl., 441.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, 15 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1subject to objections regarding privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. FORM INTERROGATORIES GENERAL OBJECTIONS Standard makes the following General Objections to the Form Interrogatories. These General Objections are incorporated by reference into each of the specific responses ("Response" or "Responses") to each numbered Form Interrogatory. The assertion of the same or additional objections to any particular individual Form Interrogatory does not waive other General Objections, as set forth below, that are not specifically repeated in the Responses. Standard provides these objections without waiving, or intending to waive, but on the contrary preserving, and intending to preserve: (i) the right to object, on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevance or materiality, or any other proper grounds, to the use of these Responses for any purpose, in whole or in part, in any subsequent stage or proceeding in this action; and (ii) the right to object on any and all grounds, at any time, to other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the Form Interrogatories to which Standard has responded herein. 1. As further addressed in Standard's and GAF Energy, Inc.'s ("GAF Energy") July 19, 2019 Motion to Quash Discovery Requests ("Motion to Quash"), Standard objects to each Form] Interrogatory on the grounds that, pursuant to California statute, SunPower is currentl prohibited from commencing any discovery as it has failed to comply with California Code off Civil Procedure section 2019.210, which requires that "before commencing discovery relating! to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with] reasonable 24 particularity." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 2019.210; see also Advanced Modulai Sputtering, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 132 Cal. App. 4th 826, 834-35 (2005). 2. Standard objects to each Form Interrogatory based upon SunPower's failure to allege sufficient] facts to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under the California Uniform Trade 16 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1Secrets Act ("CUTSA"). Unless and until SunPower provides such facts, any discovery is premature. 3. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to impose an requirement or discovery obligations beyond those required by the California Code of Civi Procedure and the applicable rules and orders of the Court. 4. Standard objects to each Form Interrogatory to the extent it seeks the discovery of information] protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine. the consulting expert privilege, the self-critical analysis privilege, and/or any other privileges or immunities recognized by law ("Privileged Information"). Any undertakings to make information available should be understood specifically to exclude Privileged Information. 5. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that the information sought is obtainable from other sources that are more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive] See Ca . Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.030(a)(1). 6. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories on the ground and to the extent that Standard has not completed its factual investigation. Moreover, information that may be responsive to the Form Interrogatories may not yet have been discovered. 7. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require Standard to reach legal conclusions. 8. Standard objects to the Form Interrogatories to the extent that they either assume the existence of facts that Standard disputes or constitute an inaccurate characterization of the facts. Standard does not hereby admit, adopt or acquiesce in any factual or legal contention, assertion] characterization, or implication in the Form Interrogatories. 9. Standard objects to the Definition of "INCIDENT" on the grounds that it uses the for definition, which is "the circumstances and events surrounding the alleged accident, injury, o1 other occurrence or breach of contract giving rise to this action or proceeding." This form] definition is inapplicable to the Complaint, which purports to be based on multiple occurrences and events involving different defendants over an extended period of time. Standard canno 17 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1determine which "accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract" this definition ig referring to. REASONS TO STRIKE/OVERRULE STANDARD’S GENERAL OBJECTIONS Standard’s general objection that SunPower is currently prohibited from commencing any discovery because it has not complied with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 (“§ 2019.210”) is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide substantive responses. (Fogarty Decl., § 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide substantive responses, subject to objections regarding scope and privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its rights to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other general objections. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1 State the name, ADDRESS, telephone number, and relationship to you of each PERSON who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the responses to these interrogatories. (Do not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 1.1 Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Form Interrogatory. Standard specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on 18 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Form Interrogatory is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 (“Section 2019.210”). Standard further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, Standard will respond to this Form Interrogatory. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive response. (Fogarty Decl., §|41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, subject to objections regarding scope and privilege, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. 19 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1 At the time of the INCIDENT, was there in effect any policy of insurance through which you were or might be insured in any manner (for example, primary, pro-rata, or excess liability coverage or medical expense coverage) for the damages, claims, or actions that have arisen out of the INCIDENT? If so, for each policy state: (a) the kind of coverage; (b) the name and ADDRESS of the insurance company; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each named insured; (d) the policy number; (e) the limits of coverage for each type of coverage contained in the policy; whether any reservation of rights or controversy or coverage dispute exists between you and the insurance company; and (g) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the custodian of the policy. RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 4.1 Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Form Interrogatory. Standard specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Form Interrogatory is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain in its use of the term “INCIDENT.” The form definition of “INCIDENT” is inapplicable to the Complaint, which purports to be based on multiple occurrences and events involving different defendants over an extended period of time. Standard cannot determine which “accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract” this definition is referring to. 20 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Form Interrogatory. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained within the over 1,700+ files at issue and addresses the issues raised in the Court’s April 21, 2020 Order. (See, Fogarty Decl., Ex. 1, SunPower’s 2AD; See, e.g., Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (“Advanced Modular’) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 836 [“Reasonable particularity” means what is “reasonable, i.e., fair, proper, just and rational, under all the circumstances” of this case.].) SunPower’s 2AD permits Standard to ascertain the boundaries within which the trade secrets lie and provides reasonable guidance for ascertaining the scope of appropriate discovery in this case. (See, Advanced Modular, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 826; Brescia v. Angelin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133, 144.) During the parties’ August 4, 2020 meet and confer discussions, Standard confirmed it is relying on this objection to SunPower’s 2AD as the grounds for the refusal to provide a substantive response. (Fogarty Decl., § 41.) Standard confirmed that it would provide a substantive response, subject to objections regarding scope, once the stay on discovery is lifted. SunPower reserves its right to make a further motion to compel, if the parties cannot resolve any additional disputes that may arise regarding Standard’s other objections. FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1 State the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each individual: (a) who witnessed the INCIDENT or the events occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT; (b) who made any statement at the scene of the INCIDENT; 21 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\11323345.1(c) who heard any statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene; and (d) who YOU OR ANYONE ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF claim has knowledge of the INCIDENT (except for expert witnesses covered by Code of Civil Procedure section 2034). RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 12.1 Standard hereby incorporates the aforementioned General Objections as Specific Objections to this Form Interrogatory. Standard specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on the grounds set forth in the Motion to Quash, that this Form Interrogatory is improper until SunPower provides a trade secret designation that complies with Section 2019.210. Standard further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory based on SunPower’s failure to allege sufficient facts against Standard to constitute a trade secret misappropriation claim under CUTSA. Standard further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain in its use of the term “INCIDENT.” The form definition of “INCIDENT” is inapplicable to the Complaint, which purports to be based on multiple occurrences and events involving different defendants over an extended period of time. Standard cannot determine which “accident, injury, or other occurrence or breach of contract” this definition is referring to. Standard further specifically objects to this Form Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and unclear as to the term “scene,” as it pertains to the allegations in SunPower’s Complaint. If and only after SunPower makes a proper Section 2019.210 trade secret designation, subject to and without waiving any objections, Standard is willing to meet and confer to discuss narrowing and/or appropriately tailoring this Form Interrogatory. REASON TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE: Standard’s objection that this request is improper because SunPower has not provided a trade secret designation that complies with Code of Civil Procedure Section 2019.210 is invalid. On June 3, 2020, SunPower served its Second Amended Trade Secret Designation (“2AD”), which identifies with far more than mere “reasonable particularity” the SunPower trade secrets contained 22 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. 19-CV-349042 DM1\1