United States v. Bernice T. Morales

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there was a genuine dispute of fact as to whether a trade secret existed under the DTSA
• observing that 4 “[c]ourts have analyzed [the federal FTSA and the state CUTSA] claims together because the 5 elements are substantially similar”
• explaining that “[t]o prevail on a 24 request for additional discovery under Rule 56(d), a party must show that: (1) it has set 25 7Rule 56(d
• considering claims brought under the federal trade secrets statute together with a state uniform trade secrets act “because the elements are substantially similar”
• noting the 11 plaintiff’s “hedging language” was “not fatal to [its] claim”
• setting forth burden on party requesting additional discovery under Rule 56(d)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).