This is currently the most volatile area of trade secret procedure, and Washington practitioners face divergent state and federal standards.
Washington state courts. A plaintiff's "declarations and affidavits must provide specific, concrete examples illustrating that the information meets the requirements for a trade secret." Belo Management Services, Inc. v. Click! Network, 184 Wn. App. 649, 657, 340 P.3d 236 (2014). Modumetal, Inc. v. Xtalic Corp., 4 Wn. App. 2d 810, 425 P.3d 871 (2018), review denied, 192 Wn.2d 1011, 432 P.3d 793 (2019), reflects a comparatively restrictive approach to identification during discovery, aimed at preventing fishing expeditions. Federal courts applying Washington law have similarly held that a vague description of the product at issue, without identification of which components are claimed as trade secrets, is insufficient to survive dismissal. See Baden Sports, Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., No. C11-0603-MJP, 2011 WL 3158607, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 26, 2011).
Federal courts under the DTSA. The Ninth Circuit has now drawn a line. In Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc. (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2025), the court reversed an order striking nine of eleven asserted trade secrets for failure to satisfy California's pre-discovery identification rule, holding that the DTSA does not require a plaintiff to identify its trade secrets with particularity from the outset and that conventional Federal Rules procedures govern timing and scope. The decision is in tension with the Fourth Circuit's contrary approach in Sysco Machinery Corp. v. DCS USA Corp., 143 F.4th 222 (4th Cir. 2025), which requires particularized pleading so that courts may assess plausibility early.
Zunum. The companion Ninth Circuit decision is a Washington case and warrants attention. Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., was tried to a jury over eight days in May 2024. The jury found that Boeing had misappropriated 11 of 19 asserted trade secrets relating to electric and hybrid-electric aircraft technology under WUTSA, that Boeing breached a confidentiality agreement, and that Boeing tortiously interfered with Zunum's business expectancy with Safran S.A. The verdict totaled approximately $81.2 million, comprising roughly $67.08 million on the misappropriation and contract claims, $14.15 million for unjust enrichment, and $11.56 million in non-duplicative tortious interference damages, with an offset of $20.82 million for failure to mitigate. The jury also found the misappropriation wilful and malicious.
In August 2024 the district court granted judgment as a matter of law and conditionally ordered a new trial, concluding that Zunum had offered only vague and amorphous descriptions of its trade secrets and had failed to prove value, misappropriation, and damages. On August 14, 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel unanimously reversed, reinstated the verdict in full, held the conditional new-trial ruling an abuse of discretion, and reassigned the case to a different district judge following disclosure that the presiding judge's spouse had acquired Boeing stock during the litigation. The exemplary damages and fee questions triggered by the wilful-and-malicious finding return to the district court.
Practitioners on both sides should consult The Sedona Conference, Commentary on the Proper Identification of Asserted Trade Secrets in Misappropriation Cases (2021), which the post-Zunum commentary has treated as the working roadmap for pretrial identification.