California attorney · CA Bar #279869

California trade secret attorney

I'm Sergei Tokmakov, a California attorney. If a former employee, contractor, or competitor has taken your trade secrets, the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code § 3426) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836) give you damages, royalty disgorgement, and injunctive relief, with attorney fees on willful misappropriation. I draft the demand letter plus the preliminary-injunction-ready complaint that gets the misappropriator's attention.

1,500+contracts drafted
700+Upwork reviews
14+years in practice
100%job-success score
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426-3426.11
Quick answer

The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code §§ 3426-3426.11) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836) are typically pleaded together in California trade-secret matters. CUTSA § 3426.7 preempts common-law misappropriation claims. CCP § 339.1 sets a three-year SOL from discovery. CCP § 2019.210 requires identification of the trade secret with reasonable particularity before discovery begins. California explicitly rejects the inevitable-disclosure doctrine under Schlage Lock v. Whyte (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443. Damages include actual loss, unjust enrichment, or reasonable royalty, with up to 2x exemplary damages for willful misappropriation. Demand + draft complaint from $1,200.

CUTSA
Civ. § 3426 et seq.
DTSA
18 U.S.C. § 1836
3-year SOL
Per Civ. § 3426.6
Fees
Available for bad-faith claim

What I do for trade-secret matters

1

Identify the secret with specificity.

CUTSA requires the secret to be identified with reasonable particularity. I work with the client to identify the secret, the safeguards, and the misappropriation conduct so the complaint survives.

Civ. § 3426.1
2

Frame CUTSA preemption correctly.

CUTSA preempts most overlapping common-law claims (conversion, unfair competition). I plead around preemption so the overlapping theories survive.

Civ. § 3426.7
3

Build the TRO or PI motion record early.

Trade-secret cases live or die on the TRO or preliminary injunction. I build the motion record from the demand stage so the filing is ready when needed.

4

Calendar the 3-year SOL under § 3426.6.

CUTSA SOL is 3 years from discovery. I calendar it. On the $1,200 tier I add the complaint with CUTSA and (if facts support) DTSA federal counts.

Civ. § 3426.6 + DTSA

Why this calls for an attorney, not a template C&D

DIY / template

What a self-written letter misses

  • Cannot identify the secret with specificity
  • Misses CUTSA preemption of overlapping claims
  • Lets the defendant control the inevitable-disclosure narrative
  • Has no plan for the TRO or PI
Attorney letter

What the attorney letter does

  • Identifies the secret, the misappropriation, and the lift
  • Frames the CUTSA preemption correctly
  • Builds the TRO or PI motion record early
  • Calendars the three-year SOL under Civ. § 3426.6

CUTSA preempts most overlapping common-law claims, the memo identifies the secret, the misappropriation, and the lift before the complaint is drafted.

The controlling law

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426-3426.11 (CUTSA)

California's trade-secret statute

This authority is California's trade-secret statute. § 3426.1 defines a trade secret as information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known and is the subject of reasonable secrecy measures. § 3426.2 authorizes injunctive relief; § 3426.3 authorizes damages (actual loss, unjust enrichment, reasonable royalty, plus up to 2x exemplary for willful and malicious misappropriation). § 3426.4 awards attorney fees on willful misappropriation by defendant or bad-faith claim by plaintiff. § 3426.5 governs the protective order procedure. § 3426.6 has the three-year SOL with continuing-misappropriation rule. § 3426.7 preempts conflicting state-law claims.

18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq. (DTSA)

The federal defend trade secrets act

This authority is the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, enacted in 2016. § 1836(b) creates the private federal cause of action and requires nexus to interstate commerce. § 1836(b)(2) authorizes civil seizure in extraordinary circumstances. § 1839 defines trade secret and misappropriation. § 1836(d) is the three-year SOL. DTSA does not preempt state law, so CUTSA and DTSA can run together.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 339.1

The three-year statute of limitations on

This authority is the three-year statute of limitations on California trade-secret actions, running from discovery or reasonable diligence. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim under CUTSA § 3426.6, so the clock runs from initial discovery, not at each new use.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210

This authority requires the plaintiff to identify the trade

This authority requires the plaintiff to identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery. This is the gating procedural step and the most common source of motions in California trade-secret litigation. Generic identifications fail; the plaintiff must specify which customers, formulas, designs, or processes are at issue.

Schlage Lock Co. v. Whyte (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443

Rejected the inevitable-disclosure doctrine in california

Rejected the inevitable-disclosure doctrine in California. An employer cannot enjoin a former employee from working for a competitor merely because the employee will inevitably use confidential information; this would create a de facto non-compete and conflict with Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600. See the California non-compete attorney page for the related § 16600 analysis.

The damages math. A trade-secret case where a former employee took customer lists and price formulas to a competitor that won $4 million in business in the first year: under § 3426.3, the plaintiff can seek actual loss (lost profits on the diverted business, approximately $1.2 million at 30 percent margin), unjust enrichment by the competitor not duplicated in actual loss (another $400,000), or a reasonable royalty in lieu of those. If the misappropriation is willful and malicious, the court can add up to 2x exemplary damages ($2.4 million) plus attorney fees. Total realistic exposure: $4 to $6 million. That is the number the demand letter calculates for the defendant.

What clients send me

Trade-secret cases require careful documentation of what the trade secrets are and how they were protected. Before drafting, I ask for:

  • A list of the specific trade secrets at issue, with the level of detail appropriate for the case (under separate cover or with redactions if commercially sensitive)
  • The confidentiality agreements (NDAs, employment agreements, contractor agreements, vendor agreements) signed by the alleged misappropriator
  • The company's written confidentiality and information-security policies
  • Records of access controls: who had access to what, how access was granted and revoked, password and authentication practices
  • Records of document marking: how trade-secret materials were labeled or tracked
  • The misappropriator's employment or engagement records: hire date, termination date, exit-interview notes, return of materials confirmation
  • Evidence of the misappropriation conduct: log files, email forwards, file transfers, cloud-sync activity, USB usage, mobile-device sync events
  • Specific facts about how the trade secrets are being used now (which customers, which products, which markets)
  • Names and contact information for IT personnel who can speak to the forensic record
  • The defendant's known affiliations: current employer, new business, investors, partners
  • Any direct communications between the defendant and you, your customers, or your employees

If documents are incomplete, send what you have. I tell you what is missing and whether the gaps affect the case before quoting.

What I send back

$1,200

What you get

  • A four-to-six-page attorney demand letter on Terms.Law / Sergei Tokmakov, Esq. letterhead with my CA Bar number
  • Citation to CUTSA (§ 3426) and DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836) with the specific misappropriation facts
  • Trade-secret identification with the appropriate level of specificity
  • Specific demands: cease use, return materials, forensic preservation, accounting of use to date
  • Litigation-hold notice to prevent evidence spoliation
  • A court-ready California Superior Court or federal-court complaint with PI-ready allegations
  • Civil case cover sheet and summons drafted for the appropriate forum
  • Damages prayer with actual loss, unjust enrichment, reasonable royalty, exemplary, and attorney fees
  • Forum analysis on CUTSA vs DTSA vs parallel state/federal
  • USPS certified mail delivery with signature requested, plus email delivery to the defendant and any known counsel
  • Three rounds of revisions before the letter goes out
  • Three negotiation responses after delivery

How the engagement runs

1
Send facts

Email a paragraph + key documents.

2
Identify theory

I map the facts to the CA statute.

3
Draft letter

Attorney letter on letterhead.

4
You approve

Two revision rounds included.

5
Send certified

USPS certified + email delivery.

6
Negotiate

Three negotiation responses included.

Choose your path

Start here if

Case memo

$349
  • You want a written legal evaluation first
  • You may refer to a contingency firm later
  • Statute or evidence questions are unsettled
Accept memo - $349
Most common

Attorney demand letter

$575
  • Single target, one letter, certified mail
  • Counterparty is responsive to attorney letterhead
  • No draft lawsuit needed yet
Accept letter - $575
Start here if

Demand + draft lawsuit

$1,200
  • Counterparty needs to see the lawsuit is real
  • Multiple claims or institutional defendant
  • You may file pro se after the demand
Accept package - $1,200

Pricing

Trade Secret Demand + Draft Complaint

$1,200 · flat fee
  • Attorney letter on CA Bar #279869 letterhead
  • CUTSA + DTSA statutory citations
  • CCP § 2019.210-ready trade-secret identification
  • PI-ready complaint with damages prayer
  • Litigation-hold notice + forensic preservation demand
  • Forum analysis (state v federal)
  • Three negotiation responses included

Note on PI motion and full litigation: If the matter requires immediate preliminary-injunction motion practice (ex parte TRO, expedited PI hearing) or proceeds to active litigation, the $1,200 package is the foundation. Full PI motion drafting with supporting declarations, expert reports, and reply briefing is scoped separately as a litigation engagement.

Related on Terms.Law

Practice area
California Non-Compete Attorney (Bus. & Prof. § 16600)
Practice area
California SaaS Legal Package Attorney
Practice area
California Contract Breach Attorney
Free Opus tool
Causes of Action Identifier
Template
California NDA Generator
Hub
All California practice areas

Frequently asked questions

You
What is the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act?
S
The California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), codified at Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426-3426.11, is California's version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, adopted in 1985. CUTSA defines a trade secret as information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known and that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. § 3426.2 authorizes injunctive relief; § 3426.3 authorizes damages including actual loss, unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty plus exemplary damages for willful and malicious misappropriation. § 3426.4 awards attorney fees in cases of bad-faith claims or willful misappropriation.
You
How does CUTSA preemption work?
S
Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7 explicitly preempts state-law claims that are "based upon misappropriation of a trade secret," which has been interpreted broadly by California courts. In K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology & Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939 and Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, the court held that CUTSA preempts common-law claims for breach of confidence, unfair competition, and conversion when those claims are based on the same operative facts as a trade-secret claim. The practical effect: plaintiffs must run their misappropriation theory through CUTSA rather than through parallel common-law claims, and defendants regularly attack non-CUTSA claims as preempted.
You
What is the federal DTSA and when does it apply?
S
The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq.), enacted in 2016, creates a federal private right of action for trade-secret misappropriation. DTSA requires that the trade secret "be related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce." DTSA does not preempt state law, so CUTSA and DTSA can be pleaded in parallel. Federal court jurisdiction is automatic when DTSA is pleaded. DTSA also provides for civil seizure (§ 1836(b)(2)) in extraordinary circumstances and includes whistleblower-immunity provisions. Most California trade-secret cases now plead both CUTSA and DTSA.
You
What is the statute of limitations on trade-secret claims?
S
CCP § 339.1 sets a three-year statute of limitations for trade-secret misappropriation, running from when the misappropriation "is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered." DTSA also has a three-year SOL (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)). The discovery rule is plaintiff-friendly but defense counsel attacks diligence. CUTSA also includes a "continuing misappropriation" rule under § 3426.6: continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim, so the SOL begins when the original misappropriation was or should have been discovered, not at each subsequent use.
You
What's in the $1,200 demand + complaint package?
S
An attorney demand letter to the alleged misappropriator on my letterhead citing CUTSA (Civ. Code § 3426) and DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836), identifying the trade secrets at issue with appropriate specificity, demanding cessation of use, return of materials, and forensic preservation. The package also includes a court-ready California Superior Court complaint (or federal complaint when DTSA jurisdiction is anchored) with allegations drafted to support a preliminary-injunction motion, specifically: identification of the trade secrets, the reasonable measures taken to maintain secrecy, the misappropriation conduct, irreparable harm, and balance of equities. Civil case cover sheet and summons included. Three negotiation responses after delivery.
You
Why isn't inevitable disclosure available in California?
S
The inevitable-disclosure doctrine, recognized in some states, allows an employer to enjoin a former employee from working for a competitor on the theory that the employee will inevitably use the former employer's trade secrets. California explicitly rejects inevitable disclosure. Schlage Lock Co. v. Whyte (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443 held that the doctrine "would create a de facto covenant not to compete" which conflicts with California's public policy under Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 (which voids non-competes with narrow exceptions). The practical effect: California trade-secret plaintiffs must show actual or threatened misappropriation, not just employment with a competitor.
You
How specific does the trade-secret identification have to be?
S
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210 requires that a CUTSA plaintiff identify the trade secret "with reasonable particularity" before commencing discovery. The identification must be specific enough to allow the defendant to know what is allegedly misappropriated and to allow the court to fashion appropriate discovery limits. Generic identifications ("our customer database", "our product designs") usually fail; the identification needs to specify which customers, which designs, which formulas, which processes. This is the gating procedural step in California trade-secret litigation and is the most common cause of dismissal or stay.
You
What are reasonable secrecy measures?
S
CUTSA requires that the information be "the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy." What counts as "reasonable" is fact-specific: confidentiality agreements with employees and contractors, marking documents confidential, restricting access on a need-to-know basis, password-protecting electronic files, locking physical premises, exit-interview protocols. The leading California case on adequacy is Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1995) 923 F.Supp. 1231 (applying CUTSA in federal court). Failure to take reasonable measures can defeat the trade-secret status entirely.
You
Can I get a preliminary injunction quickly?
S
Yes. Trade-secret cases are among the most common contexts for preliminary injunctions because the harm (ongoing use of the trade secret) is typically irreparable. The standard is likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. California courts will issue a TRO ex parte in emergency cases (e.g., evidence that the misappropriator is about to launch a competing product). The complaint I draft in the $1,200 package is structured to support the PI motion: the allegations track the PI factors and the prayer for relief includes specific injunctive language. Full PI motion drafting is scoped separately.
You
What damages are available under CUTSA?
S
Civ. Code § 3426.3 authorizes (1) actual loss caused by the misappropriation, (2) unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation that is not duplicated by actual-loss damages, or (3) in lieu of those, a reasonable royalty for the misappropriator's use. § 3426.3(c) allows exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory amount for willful and malicious misappropriation. § 3426.4 allows attorney fees to the prevailing party in cases of willful and malicious misappropriation by the defendant or bad-faith claim by the plaintiff. DTSA damages are parallel. The combined statutory exposure can be substantial in commercial cases.

Trade secrets walked out the door? Let me write the demand.

Email me a short paragraph about what was taken, by whom, and how you discovered it. I'll respond same day with a scoped flat-fee quote.

Email owner@terms.law