Summary
In Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69 * * 1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2002), Judge Martin held that California substantive law governs Convolve's state law claims against Seagate. This choice of law decision is the controlling law of the case.
Summary of this case from Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp.Opinion
00 Civ. 5141 (JSM)
January 2, 2002
Kenneth A. Freeling, Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Robert W. Morris, Fish Neave, Peter Bucci, Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe, New York, NY, Terrence P. McMahon, McKermott, Will Emery LLC, Menlo Park, CA, for Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
By order filed on July 26, 2001 this court appointed Pasquale A. Razzano to hear and determine certain discovery disputes among the parties.
On October 12, 2001, the Special Master filed a Report and Recommendation providing that Convole should file an Amended Trade Secret Identification. Convolve complied and on November 2, 2001, the Special Master filed a Supplemental Report and Recommendation finding that the Amended Trade Secret Identification satisfied the requirements of § 2019(d) of the California Civil Procedure Code and recommending that discovery be permitted to commence with respect to all such trade secrets. On November 9, 2001, the Special Master submitted an additional Report and Recommendation concerning the construction of the Protective Order previously entered in this action.
To date no one has filed an objection to any of the above Reports and Recommendations of the Special Master. The Court, therefore, accepts and adopts each of the above referenced Reports and Recommendations of the Special Master.
Since Convole has now filed a trade secret identification which satisfies § 2019(d) of the California Civil Procedure, Seagate's motion to strike the trade secret allegations of the Complaint is denied.
SO ORDERED.