📋 Overview

You've left a job and received a cease and desist letter accusing you of trade secret misappropriation, NDA breach, or taking confidential information. These letters often come shortly after joining a competitor or starting your own business. While the allegations may feel overwhelming, many of these claims are overreaching attempts to prevent legitimate competition.

⚠ Immediate Risks

Trade secret claims can lead to TROs, preliminary injunctions, and expedited discovery. Don't delete anything - spoliation is severely punished.

🕒 Act Quickly

Former employers may seek emergency injunctive relief. Prepare your response and gather evidence supporting your defenses immediately.

🏝 California Advantage

California strongly favors employee mobility. B&P 16600 voids noncompetes, and courts scrutinize trade secret claims that function as de facto noncompetes.

Common Allegations in Employee Exit Letters

  • Trade secret misappropriation - Taking customer lists, pricing data, technical specifications, or business strategies
  • NDA/Confidentiality breach - Disclosing or using information covered by employment agreements
  • Breach of fiduciary duty - Allegedly preparing to compete while still employed
  • Tortious interference - Soliciting former customers or employees
  • Computer fraud - Unauthorized access to systems or data
  • Conversion - Taking company property (laptops, files, documents)
$450
Attorney Response Letter

Professional analysis, defense strategy, and response protecting your rights and California employee mobility protections.

Schedule Review

⚖ Understanding Trade Secret Law

Trade secret claims can arise under federal and state law. Understanding both frameworks helps you evaluate the strength of the claims against you.

Federal: Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) - 18 U.S.C. 1836

The DTSA (2016) created a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. It allows federal court jurisdiction and ex parte seizure orders in extreme cases. The DTSA requires that the trade secret be "related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce."

Key DTSA Features:

  • Federal court jurisdiction
  • Ex parte seizure orders (rarely granted)
  • Whistleblower immunity (18 U.S.C. 1833)
  • Must give employees notice of immunity in contracts
18 U.S.C. 1836-1839; enacted May 11, 2016

California: Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) - Civil Code 3426

California's CUTSA provides the state law framework for trade secret protection. It preempts most common law claims related to misappropriation, meaning trade secret claims generally must be brought under CUTSA rather than other theories.

CUTSA Trade Secret Definition (CC 3426.1):

  • Information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known
  • Not readily ascertainable by proper means
  • Subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy
Civil Code Sections 3426-3426.11; 3-year statute of limitations (CC 3426.6)

What Must Be Proven

Element Plaintiff's Burden
Trade Secret Exists Must identify with "reasonable particularity" - not just broad categories
Economic Value from Secrecy Must show the information provides competitive advantage because it's secret
Reasonable Secrecy Measures Must demonstrate actual efforts to keep information confidential
Misappropriation Must prove acquisition by improper means OR disclosure/use of information
Damages or Threat Must show actual or threatened harm from the misappropriation

The "Reasonable Particularity" Requirement

Under California law, plaintiffs must identify their alleged trade secrets with "reasonable particularity" - they cannot simply point to broad categories like "customer information" or "business methods." Courts in California require specificity because:

  • Vague claims allow fishing expeditions through discovery
  • Defendants need to know what they're accused of taking
  • Courts must be able to evaluate whether information qualifies as a trade secret

A demand letter that doesn't identify specific trade secrets may be a sign of a weak claim. See Perlan Therapeutics v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1333.

🛡 Key Defenses

Several strong defenses are available to trade secret and NDA breach allegations.

Not a Trade Secret - Failure to Meet Definition

Much of what employers call "trade secrets" doesn't actually qualify. Information that is generally known in the industry, readily ascertainable through proper means, or not subject to reasonable secrecy efforts is not a trade secret.

When to use: The information is publicly available, known in the industry, or the employer didn't actually protect it.

Independent Development

If you developed the information independently without reference to the former employer's materials, that's a complete defense. Your general skills, knowledge, and experience gained during employment belong to you.

When to use: You can show you created similar work product through your own efforts, not by copying or using their materials.

Public Domain / Reverse Engineering

Information that's in the public domain cannot be a trade secret. Similarly, information that can be discovered through legitimate reverse engineering of publicly available products is not protectable.

When to use: The information was published, disclosed in patents, available online, or derivable from public products.

Lack of Reasonable Particularity

Demand that the plaintiff identify with reasonable particularity exactly what trade secrets they claim. Vague allegations of "customer information" or "proprietary methods" are insufficient and may indicate a fishing expedition.

When to use: The demand letter makes only broad, categorical allegations without identifying specific information.

No Misappropriation - Proper Means

Even if something is a trade secret, acquiring it through proper means (training, lawful observation, public sources) is not misappropriation. You're entitled to use your general knowledge and skills.

When to use: You learned the information through normal job duties, not through improper access or breach of duty.

Statute of Limitations

CUTSA has a 3-year statute of limitations from when the misappropriation was discovered or should have been discovered. Federal DTSA has a similar 3-year period.

When to use: The alleged conduct occurred more than 3 years ago, or the employer knew about it more than 3 years ago.

General Skills and Knowledge Belong to You

California courts distinguish between protectable trade secrets and an employee's general skill, knowledge, and experience. You're entitled to take your accumulated expertise with you. As stated in Morlife, Inc. v. Perry (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1514:

"An employee's general knowledge, skill and experience are not trade secrets... An employee is entitled to use the general skill and knowledge he has acquired during his employment, even in competition with a former employer."

🏝 California Employee Mobility Protections

California provides the strongest employee mobility protections in the nation. Understanding these protections is essential when responding to trade secret claims that may be disguised noncompete enforcement.

Business & Professions Code Section 16600

"Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."

This statute voids virtually all noncompete agreements in California, including those signed in other states. Courts apply it broadly to protect employee mobility.

B&P Code 16600; see Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937

Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008)

The California Supreme Court confirmed that Section 16600 represents a fundamental public policy protecting employee mobility. The court rejected the "narrow restraint" exception used in other states, holding that California will not enforce noncompetes even if they're limited in scope.

Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937

Trade Secret Claims as De Facto Noncompetes

Many trade secret claims are really attempts to prevent competition by former employees. California courts are skeptical of claims that would effectively prevent an employee from working in their field.

Signs of a Disguised Noncompete

Watch for these indicators that a "trade secret" claim is really noncompete enforcement:

  • Demands that you not work for competitors at all
  • Claims that your "knowledge of how we do things" is protectable
  • Broad allegations about customer relationships without specific information
  • Demands that go beyond protecting specific secrets to restricting your work generally
  • Threats triggered by the mere fact of competitive employment
"Your knowledge of our sales processes and client relationship methods makes any work for [Competitor] a threat to our trade secrets."

What You CAN Do in California

  • Work for a competitor immediately after leaving
  • Start a competing business
  • Use your general skills, knowledge, and experience
  • Solicit customers (absent tortious conduct)
  • Announce your new position to professional contacts
  • Recruit former colleagues (after you've left)

AB 2282 (2024) - Noncompete Notice Requirements

Recent California legislation (AB 2282, effective January 1, 2024) requires employers to notify current and former employees that any noncompete clauses in their contracts are void. Employers who included noncompetes must provide written notice that they are unenforceable. This strengthens employee protections and may indicate bad faith if your former employer is now claiming trade secrets after including void noncompetes.

💻 Forensic Evidence & Device Issues

Trade secret cases often involve forensic examination of devices and accounts. Understanding these issues helps you avoid pitfalls and protect your rights.

Critical: Do Not Delete Anything

Once you receive a demand letter (or reasonably anticipate litigation), you have a duty to preserve evidence. Deleting files, clearing browsers, or wiping devices can result in:

  • Adverse inference instructions (jury told to assume deleted files were incriminating)
  • Monetary sanctions
  • Dismissal of your defenses
  • Separate claims for spoliation
Even files you believe are personal or irrelevant should be preserved until counsel reviews them.

Common Forensic Issues

💻 Company Devices

  • ✓ Did you return all company laptops, phones, and equipment?
  • ✓ Did you copy files from company devices before returning them?
  • ✓ Do you have documentation of what was on devices when returned?

📱 BYOD / Personal Devices

  • ✓ Did you use personal devices for work?
  • ✓ Did you sign a BYOD policy allowing company access?
  • ✓ Have work files been removed from personal devices?

BYOD and Privacy Concerns

If you used personal devices for work (BYOD), the former employer may seek to image or inspect those devices. You have privacy rights, but they may be limited if you signed a BYOD policy. Key considerations:

  • Employers generally cannot demand access to personal devices without consent or court order
  • Court-ordered inspections may be narrowly tailored to work-related files
  • Forensic protocols should protect irrelevant personal information
  • Consider offering to have a neutral forensic examiner search for specific files

Cloud Accounts and Email

Former employers often claim you accessed systems after departure or forwarded files to personal accounts. Be prepared to address:

  • Personal email accounts used for any work communications
  • Cloud storage (Dropbox, Google Drive, iCloud) that may contain work files
  • Messaging apps (Slack, Teams) on personal devices
  • Access logs showing when you last accessed company systems

Legitimate Pre-Departure Activity

Some pre-departure activity is lawful, even if it looks suspicious in hindsight. California recognizes that employees can prepare to compete while still employed, within limits.

Lawful activities include: Researching new opportunities, updating your resume with non-confidential information, announcing planned departure to customers, recruiting after departure.

📝 Response Strategy

Your response to a trade secret demand letter should accomplish several goals: deny wrongdoing, demand specificity, assert California mobility rights, and propose a reasonable protocol.

Deny Misappropriation

Clearly deny that you misappropriated any trade secrets or confidential information. Don't admit to anything; even seemingly innocent admissions can be used against you.

  • Preserve your position
  • Force them to prove claims
  • Create defense record

Demand Specificity

Require them to identify alleged trade secrets with "reasonable particularity." Vague claims about "customer lists" or "proprietary methods" are insufficient.

  • Exposes weak claims
  • Clarifies allegations
  • Required by law anyway

Assert CA Mobility Rights

Explicitly invoke B&P 16600 and California's public policy favoring employee mobility. Put them on notice that overbroad demands won't be tolerated.

  • Frames the dispute
  • Deters overreach
  • Establishes defenses

Propose Protocol

Offer reasonable steps: confirm return of materials, propose deletion verification, suggest meet-and-confer. Shows good faith without admitting wrongdoing.

  • Demonstrates good faith
  • May avoid litigation
  • Creates favorable record

Response Letter Structure

  1. Acknowledge receipt - Note you received the letter without admitting any allegations
  2. Deny misappropriation - Clearly state you did not take or misuse trade secrets
  3. Demand identification - Request specific identification of alleged trade secrets with reasonable particularity
  4. Assert defenses - Note California employee mobility protections and other applicable defenses
  5. Propose protocol - Offer reasonable steps (return confirmation, meet-and-confer)
  6. Reserve rights - Preserve all legal rights and defenses

📊 Exposure Analysis - Trade Secret Litigation

If they file suit and you lose

Actual damages (lost profits) Varies widely
Unjust enrichment Profits attributed to secrets
Exemplary damages (if willful) Up to 2x actual
Attorney fees (if willful or bad faith) $100,000+
Injunction May restrict work
YOUR DEFENSE COST $50,000 - $250,000+

DTSA Whistleblower Immunity

The Defend Trade Secrets Act provides immunity for disclosure of trade secrets to attorneys or government officials for purposes of reporting suspected violations of law. Under 18 U.S.C. 1833, you cannot be held liable for confidential disclosure to an attorney or government official solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law.

📄 Sample Response Templates

Customize these templates for your situation. Always have an attorney review before sending.

Standard Response - Deny & Demand Specificity
RE: Your letter dated [DATE] - [FORMER EMPLOYER] We acknowledge receipt of your cease and desist letter on behalf of [FORMER EMPLOYER]. We deny that [CLIENT NAME] misappropriated any trade secrets or confidential information belonging to [FORMER EMPLOYER]. Your client's allegations are without merit. Your letter fails to identify, with the reasonable particularity required under California law, any specific trade secrets allegedly misappropriated. See Civil Code 3426.1; Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1333. Broad references to "customer information," "business methods," or "proprietary processes" are insufficient. Before we can meaningfully respond to your allegations, please identify: 1. Each specific trade secret allegedly misappropriated, described with sufficient particularity to distinguish it from matters of general knowledge 2. The specific acts of alleged misappropriation (acquisition, disclosure, or use) 3. When and how the alleged misappropriation occurred 4. What reasonable measures your client took to maintain secrecy of each alleged trade secret Additionally, we note that California Business & Professions Code Section 16600 voids restraints on employee mobility. To the extent your client's claims would prevent [CLIENT NAME] from working in [his/her] profession, they are void as against California public policy. See Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937. We reserve all rights and defenses.
Response with Protocol Proposal
RE: Trade Secret Allegations - [FORMER EMPLOYER] We have received your letter dated [DATE] making various allegations against [CLIENT NAME]. We categorically deny that [CLIENT NAME] misappropriated any trade secrets or breached any confidentiality obligations. [CLIENT NAME] did not take any proprietary information, customer lists, or trade secrets when [he/she] departed [FORMER EMPLOYER]. Your letter does not identify any specific trade secrets with the reasonable particularity required by law. Nevertheless, in the interest of resolving this matter and demonstrating good faith, we propose the following protocol: 1. Return of Materials: [CLIENT NAME] will confirm in writing that [he/she] has returned all physical materials belonging to [FORMER EMPLOYER] and does not possess any documents, files, or data that constitute trade secrets of [FORMER EMPLOYER]. 2. Deletion Confirmation: To the extent any work-related files inadvertently remain on personal devices, [CLIENT NAME] will delete such files and provide written confirmation. 3. Meet and Confer: We propose a meet-and-confer session to discuss your client's specific concerns and determine whether any legitimate issues exist that can be resolved without litigation. 4. Specific Identification: As a condition of any further discussion, your client must identify with reasonable particularity the specific trade secrets at issue. This proposal is made without prejudice to any defenses and does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing. We note that California's strong public policy favoring employee mobility, codified in Business & Professions Code Section 16600, prohibits using trade secret claims as a de facto noncompete. Please respond within [14] days if your client wishes to proceed with good-faith resolution.
Response Asserting California Mobility Rights
RE: Cease and Desist - [CLIENT NAME]'s Employment Your letter dated [DATE] demands that [CLIENT NAME] cease employment with [NEW EMPLOYER/BUSINESS] based on allegations of trade secret misappropriation. We reject this demand. California has a fundamental public policy favoring employee mobility, codified in Business & Professions Code Section 16600, which provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." Your client's demand that [CLIENT NAME] not work in [his/her] profession is exactly the type of restraint California law prohibits. See Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937. [CLIENT NAME] is entitled to: - Work for competitors or start a competing business - Use [his/her] general skills, knowledge, and experience - Announce [his/her] new position to professional contacts - Compete fairly in the marketplace We note that your letter fails to identify any specific trade secrets with reasonable particularity. General allegations about "knowledge of our business" or "relationships with customers" describe [CLIENT NAME]'s lawful skills and experience, not protectable trade secrets. To the extent your client has legitimate concerns about specific, identifiable trade secrets (not general knowledge), we invite you to identify them with particularity. Absent such identification, we view your letter as an improper attempt to restrain [CLIENT NAME]'s lawful employment in violation of California law. We will not comply with your demand. [CLIENT NAME] will continue [his/her] employment with [NEW EMPLOYER/BUSINESS]. Any lawsuit based on these allegations will be vigorously defended, and we will seek attorney fees for claims brought in bad faith under Civil Code 3426.4.

📚 Legal Resources & Citations

Federal Law

  • 18 U.S.C. 1836: Defend Trade Secrets Act - federal civil cause of action
  • 18 U.S.C. 1833: DTSA whistleblower immunity provision
  • 18 U.S.C. 1839: DTSA definitions (trade secret, misappropriation)

California Statutes

  • Civil Code 3426.1: Trade secret definition under CUTSA
  • Civil Code 3426.2: Injunctive relief under CUTSA
  • Civil Code 3426.3: Damages under CUTSA
  • Civil Code 3426.4: Attorney fees for bad faith claims or defenses
  • Civil Code 3426.6: 3-year statute of limitations
  • Civil Code 3426.7: CUTSA preemption of common law claims
  • B&P Code 16600: Prohibition on noncompete agreements

Key Cases

  • Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937 - Broad interpretation of B&P 16600
  • Morlife, Inc. v. Perry (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1514 - Employee's general skills not trade secrets
  • Perlan Therapeutics v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1333 - Reasonable particularity requirement
  • ABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1 - Customer lists and trade secret analysis
  • Reeves v. Hanlon (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1140 - Employee solicitation and mobility

Get Professional Help

Trade secret allegations can threaten your career. Get a professional response that protects your rights and future employment.

Schedule Consultation - $450