ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS INC v. LEXEO THERAPEUTICS INC (2025)

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Rocket”) filed this action against Defendant Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc. (“Lexeo”) and two employees who left Rocket to work at Lexeo, i.e., Kenneth Law and Sonia Gutierrez (together, the “Individual Defendants,” and collectively with Lexeo, the “Defendants”) asserting, among other claims, trade secret misappropriation claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), as well as claims under New York law for misappropriation of trade secrets. See Rocket Pharms., Inc. v. Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc., No. 23-CV-09000 (PKC), 2024 WL 3835264, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2024). Pending before the Court is a Letter Motion by Lexeo seeking to compel Plaintiff to supplement its response to Lexeo's Interrogatory No. 1, which requests specific identification of Plaintiff's trade secrets asserted against Lexeo. (Lexeo's 1/21/25 Ltr. Mot., ECF No. 140/141.¹ )

For the reasons set forth below, Lexeo's Letter Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

In this action, Rocket alleges that the Individual Defendants provided to Lexeo certain of Rocket's trade secrets that the Individual Defendants obtained during their employment with Rocket. See Rocket Pharms, 2024 WL 3835264, at *1-2. In denying Lexeo's motion to dismiss the DTSA and New York law claims, the “the Court conclude[d] that the Complaint plausibly allege[d] that [Lexeo] misappropriated Rocket's trade secrets.” Id. at *6. In so concluding, the Court stated that, “[a]t the pleadings stage, Rocket ha[d] sufficiently identified the trade secrets purportedly misappropriated by the defendants.” Id. at *5.

In the discovery process that ensued after the motion to dismiss was denied, the Individual Defendants thus far have produced more than 590,000 documents, including all the Rocket documents stored on their personal devices, and Lexeo thus far has produced more than 350,000 documents. (Lexeo's 2d 1/28/25 Ltr., ECF No. 159, at 1-2.) Lexeo's production included what Lexeo contends are the 631 unique Rocket documents found on Lexeo's devices and systems. (Id. at 1.)

Lexeo's motion before the Court relates to Lexeo's Interrogatory No. 1, which states:

Identify (i) each Alleged Trade Secret by reciting the specific information comprising each Alleged Trade Secret; (ii) the specific portion or portions of any Document produced by You, Lexeo, Dr. Kenneth Law, or Dr. Sonia Gutierrez, if any, disclosing each Alleged Trade Secret; (iii) the methodology or methodologies (e.g., by e-mailing, handing, showing, speaking, or otherwise) by which each Alleged Trade Secret allegedly was disclosed to or acquired by Lexeo, with citations to all evidence allegedly showing such disclosure or acquisition; and (iv) the way or ways in which Lexeo allegedly used each Alleged Trade Secret, with citations to all evidence allegedly showing such use. The identification of any Alleged Trade Secret should separate each Alleged Trade Secret into a numbered list, as shown in [two examples contained in a four-column chart with the headings “Trade Secret,” “Document,” “Method of Conveyance” and “Manner of Use”].

․

For clarity, Your response to Interrogatory No. 1 should separately identify each Alleged Trade Secret, if any, in the Documents produced in this Litigation, including, but not limited to [742 documents contained in six appendices].

(Rocket's R&Os to Lexeo's Interrogatory No. 1, Ex. E to Lexeo's 1/21/25 Ltr. Mot., ECF No. 142-5, at PDF pp. 3-4.)

In its response to Interrogatory No. 1, Rocket provided to Lexeo an 80-page Appendix A. (Rocket's R&Os to Lexeo's Interrogatory No. 1 at PDF pp. 10-89.) Appendix A organized Rocket's misappropriated documents by technology platform and technical area, and within each technical area, Rocket provided a narrative description of how Rocket maintained information within each category as a trade secret and provided a list of misappropriated documents purportedly containing its trade secrets. (See id. at PDF pp. 11-89.) In addition, in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Rocket states that, “[g]iven the status of Lexeo's production, [Rocket] is unable to provide a fulsome response to this Interrogatory as information responsive to at least Lexeo's subheadings (iii) [i.e., Method of Conveyance] and (iv) [i.e., “Manner of Use”] are uniquely within Lexeo's possession, custody and control. (See id. at PDF p. 7.)

On January 21, 2025, Lexeo filed the motion that is now before the Court. (See Lexeo's 1/21/25 Ltr. Mot.) In its Letter Motion, Lexeo contends that it is entitled to “what in each document Rocket asserts is a misappropriated trade secret,” rather than the “high-level descriptions of what the document is.” (Id. at 3.)

On January 24, 2025, Rocket filed its Letter Response in opposition. (See Pl.’s 1/24/25 Ltr. Resp., ECF No. 147.) Rocket contended that it “provided a meaningful identification of its trade secrets that exceed[ed] its discovery obligations.” (Id. at 2.) On January 28, 2025, Lexeo filed its reply. (Lexeo's 1st 1/28/25 Ltr., ECF Nos. 155/156.² ) On January 29, 2025, the Court held a telephone conference to address the pending Letter Motion.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery may proceed “in any sequence,” and “discovery by one party does not require any other party to delay its discovery.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3).

In Uni-Sys., LLC v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, No. 17-CV-00147 (KAM) (CLP), 2017 WL 4081904 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2017), the court aptly addressed the scope of discovery in trade secrets cases, as follows:

Cases involving trade secrets claims follow the normal procedures set by the Federal Rules; however, courts have universally recognized that defining the scope of discovery in trade secrets cases can be particularly difficult, because there is highly sensitive information and proprietary concerns on both sides․

To address the scope of discovery in such cases, federal courts regularly require trade secrets plaintiffs to identify alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity.” ․ Although definitions vary, that standard generally requires that the plaintiff provide enough information about the alleged trade secrets (1) to put the defendant on notice of the nature of plaintiff's claims, and (2) to allow defendant to discern the relevancy of any discovery requests․

The standard is flexible and is driven by the Court's discretion. Courts have recognized that a very general showing may be sufficient, particularly in the common scenario where the trade secrets plaintiff may not know which parts of its trade secrets have been misappropriated or cannot determine the full scope of its claims until it gains a better understanding of how a defendant operates․ Thus, the strength of the showing sufficient to identify trade secrets with sufficient particularity varies with the facts and stage of the case․ It is clear, however, that generic descriptions of categories are insufficient to provide defendants with information sufficient to satisfy the “reasonable particularity” standard․

Id. at *4 (citations omitted). To show that something constitutes a trade secret, courts within this Circuit have required that the trade secret first be identified with “reasonable particularity.” Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., No. 17-CV-1803 (PGG), 2022 WL 120980, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2022) (quoting Uni-Sys., 2017 WL 4081904, at *4).

ANALYSIS

Having carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties, and the arguments of counsel, the Court, in its discretion, grants in part and denies in part Lexeo's Letter Motion.

In its Appendix to its response to Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiff identifies more than 15,000 documents that it contends contain trade secrets. (See Lexeo's 1/21/25 Ltr. Mot. at 3.) However, Lexeo contends that only 631 unique Rocket documents were stored on Lexeo's devices and systems.³ (Pl.’s 2d 1/28/25 Ltr. at 1.)

The Court finds that it would be unduly burdensome to compel Plaintiff to supplement its response to Lexeo's Interrogatory No. 1 with respect to all the 15,000 documents that Plaintiff currently contends contain trade secrets. Rather, based upon principles of proportionality, at the present time, Plaintiff only shall provide a supplemental response regarding the trade secrets, if any, Plaintiff contends are contained in each of the 631 documents referenced above, but excluding entry number 361 to Appendix F to Lexeo's Interrogatory No. 1, which Plaintiff represented on today's telephone conference contains more than 250,000 documents. (See Ex. H to Guzior 1/28/25 Decl. at PDF p. 23.) For each document, Plaintiff shall identify the specific information comprising each trade secret contained in such document and the specific location in the document where each trade secret can be found. In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff knows how a document was disclosed to or acquired by Lexeo and/or the manner in which the documents was used by Lexeo, Plaintiff shall disclose such information.

With respect to the remaining documents, no further response by Plaintiff to Interrogatory No. 1 is required at this time. After further discovery is taken, Plaintiff will need to decide which documents allegedly containing trade secrets that Plaintiff will use to prosecute its case to trial. With respect to each document that Plaintiff will use to prosecute its case, Plaintiff shall be compelled before discovery concludes to provide the supplemental response now sought by Lexeo for each such document. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Noah Med. Corp., No. 22-CV-08073 (AMO) (LJC), 2023 WL 5959427, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2023) (noting that, after further discovery, “the alleged trade secrets that lack merit will very likely become more apparent, and then [interrogatories] will be more useful to clarify or narrow the issues in the case”).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Lexeo's Letter Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall supplement its response to Lexeo's Interrogatory No. 1 as set forth herein.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Lexeo's Letter Motion was filed under seal at ECF No. 140. A redacted version is publicly filed at ECF No. 141.

2.   The first letter filed by Lexeo on January 28, 2025 was filed under seal at ECF No. 155. A redacted version was publicly filed at ECF No. 156.

3.   These documents are identified in Lexeo's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1 (see Ex. F to Guzior 1/21/25 Decl., ECF No. 142-6), and in Appendices A, B and F to Lexeo's Interrogatory No. 1. (See Ex. H to Guzior 1/28/25 Decl., ECF No. 157-2, at PDF pp. 2-3, 9-33.)

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: