Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different - 2023 Edition

©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 345 version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which authorizes injunctions against threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.52 12.5.4 Preemption of common law claims premised on trade secret misappropriation theory? Employers once clearly could pursue tort claims for employee theft or misuse of company information, even if the misappropriated information was not a trade secret.53 But California courts have held that the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) preempts tort claims—such as conversion, breach of loyalty, and tortious interference—that rely on the same nucleus of facts as a trade secret misappropriation claim.54 Some federal court decisions have been more kind to employers, holding that the CUTSA does not preempt a tort claim when the claim relies on different facts or theories of liability than those supporting a trade secret claim,55 and that a CUTSA defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis of CUTSA preemption “cannot be addressed until it is determined whether the allegedly misappropriated information constitutes a trade secret.”56 But a federal district court has held that the trade secret status of allegedly misappropriated information can be determined on a motion to dismiss, and that the CUTSA preempts an employer’s claims for misappropriation of proprietary non-trade secret information unless (1) the information was “made property by some provision of positive law;” or (2) the non-trade secret claims allege “wrongdoing that is materiall[y] distinct [from] the wrongdoing alleged in a [C]UTSA claim.”57 The Court of Appeal has provided a narrower interpretation of the CUTSA’s preemptive effect, by finding that claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, interference with business relations and conversion were not preempted by the CUTSA.58 12.5.5 Additional remedy under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act? The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) creates a new cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. The DTSA shares some features with the CUTSA, but does not preempt the CUTSA. Among the differences between the federal DTSA and the state CUTSA is that the DTSA does not contain an express preemption provision displacing common law claims based on the misappropriation of trade secrets. But it remains questionable that a California DTSA plaintiff could pursue state tort claims based on taking confidential information, because tort claims may be preempted by the CUTSA, regardless of whether a CUTSA claim is actually pleaded.59 In any event, the DTSA has allowed employers to sue in federal court for trade secret theft where they may been limited to state court before. 12.6 Preventing Data Theft with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Until recently, California employers could augment trade secret claims against former employees with claims brought under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.60 Although a criminal statute, the CFAA authorizes civil remedies for certain violations, including unauthorized access of computer systems to steal company data. The CFAA has enabled employers to obtain injunctions requiring the return of stolen data and the recovery of the employer’s investigation costs, regardless of whether the misappropriated information was a trade secret. So it was that a Ninth Circuit panel, in United States v. Nosal, held that a former employee “exceeds authorized access” to data on the employer’s computer system under the CFAA where the employee takes actions on the computer that are contrary to the employer’s written policies on acceptable use, such as prohibitions against copying files to help a third party compete with the employer.61 But then the Ninth Circuit, en banc, held that so long as the employer has authorized an employee to use the computer, there is no CFAA liability for taking information from the company database, even if that action violated company policy.62 Nosal makes California and other states within the Ninth Circuit peculiar in that Nosal rejects

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4