3D Systems, Inc. v. Wynne et al

1
21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3D SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Ben WYNNE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL
ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION OF
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF 653)
AND GRANTING SUPPLEMENTAL-
AUTHORITY REQUEST (ECF 696)
This Court granted summary judgment against plaintiff on its trade-secret claims
because the alleged secrets were described with “forbidden generality.” (ECF 645,
at 3, 11.) Plaintiff seeks reconsideration.
RECONSIDERATION STANDARD
“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly
discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,
or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). It is “the moving party’s
burden” to establish the need for reconsideration. Forte v. Schwartz, No. 1:13-cv-01980-
LJO-MJS, 2018 WL 1036403, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2018). For reconsideration requests
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), like the one here, some district courts use a
slightly different four-issue framework, which largely covers the same concerns. See, e.g.,
Gicharu v. Garland, No. 3:24-CV-349-AR, 2024 WL 2956957, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. June 11,
2024) (setting forth four-point test and collecting cases). Because the result is the same
either way, the Court will apply only the Ninth Circuit’s ACandS rule.
DISCUSSION
Under Rule 54(b), plaintiff 3D Systems moves to reverse the summary-judgment
ruling as to three of its alleged trade secrets. (ECF 653, at 9.) 3D Systems presents no
newly discovered evidence, so our analysis focuses on the last two bases for
reconsideration: clear error and new caselaw developments.
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 765 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. Clear Error
“To be clearly erroneous, a decision must strike us as more than just maybe or
probably wrong; it must be dead wrong.” United States v. Hollis, 506 F.3d 415, 421
(5th Cir. 2007). 3D Systems alleges clear error on both the facts and the law.
First, the facts. 3D Systems argues that this Court disregarded legally sufficient
trade-secret descriptions by improperly fixating on plaintiff’s “early discovery response to
Interrogatory 1” and by “overlooking” some evidence. (ECF 653, at 16.) Plaintiff
emphasizes that “trade secrets need not be identified in a single interrogatory.” (Id. at 15.)
While 3D Systems certainly was not required to rely solely on its interrogatory responses,
that is exactly where it claimed its trade-secret identifications would be found. (See
ECF 549, at 26 (3D Systems insisting that it “identified 12 trade secrets related to its 3DS
printing process” and citing to Interrogatory 1); ECF 519-5, at 12 (3D Systems’ attorney
to opposing counsel: “If you’re asking [this witness] what the company has identified as
its trade secrets, those are in the interrogatory responses.”).) The Court thus understandably
searched there (in vain) for an adequate description.
3D Systems protests that it “supplemented the initial trade secret descriptions” for
Interrogatory 1 and, in its summary-judgment papers, pointed to other “documents,
declarations, and/or discovery responses.” (ECF 653, at 15.) But it never detailed the
alleged secrets in any remotely digestible way. It appended over 1,000 pages to its
summary-judgment briefing. (See ECF 484; ECF 551.) The papers it specifically cited to
alone totaled “more than 250 pages” (ECF 645, at 10)—and even that understates the
reading burden. Over 80 of those pages included compressed transcripts, in which each
page contained four pages of deposition testimony, pushing the actual page count to around
500. (See ECF 519-5; ECF 545-3; ECF 551-5; ECF 551-9; ECF 583-1; ECF 583-2; ECF
583-3; ECF 583-4.)
Plaintiffs cannot meet their trade-secret-identification burden by burying a
descriptive needle in a haystack of papers and then dumping that haystack on the judge’s
desk. See InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653, 658, 660 (9th Cir.
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 765 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2020) (“It is inadequate for plaintiffs to ‘cite and incorporate by reference hundreds of
documents that purportedly . . . reflect the trade secret information’” and then to “invite the
court to hunt through the details in search of items meeting the statutory definition.”). This
Court even anticipated that there may be “further identifying [trade-secret] information
lurk[ing] somewhere in this substantial record.” (ECF 645, at 10.) 3D Systems now
identifies three trade secrets in a more specific and consolidated manner than it ever did
before. But its deadline to do so has long passed. This Court refuses to reward such attempts
at last-gasp compliance. 3D Systems “knowingly incurred the risk that its [trade-secret
identifications] would not meet the ‘reasonable particularity’ requirement.” See
InteliClear, 978 F.3d at 663 (emphasis removed); (see, e.g., ECF 102, at 5–6 (noting that
3D Systems’ “initial response” to the interrogatory asking it to identify and fully describe
each trade secret “was to refuse to respond at all” until the magistrate judge compelled an
answer); ECF 519-5, at 12 (3D Systems’ attorney stating: “If you’re asking [the 30(b)(6)
representative] what the company has identified as its trade secrets, those are in the
interrogatory responses.”); id. at 31 (opposing counsel asking 3D System’s 30(b)(6)
representative: “Is there like a list somewhere that lists all the trade secrets that 3DS has?”
Answer: “Not that I’m aware of.”).)
That leaves only the objections to this Court’s treatment of the caselaw. In particular,
3D Systems takes issue with the Court’s analysis of Forro Precision, Inc. v. IBM, 673 F.2d
1045 (9th Cir. 1982), and Imax Corp. v. Cinema Techs., 152 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1998). But
plaintiff merely rehashes legal positions that this Court already considered and rejected.
(See ECF 549, at 27–28, 30; ECF 645, at 4–5; ECF 653, at 17–19). None of these recycled
arguments demonstrate that this Court’s legal reasoning was “dead wrong.” See Hollis,
506 F.3d at 421.
Thus, 3D Systems has not carried its burden of showing any clear error.
B. Changed Law
Finally, 3D Systems claims that two new Ninth Circuit cases represent an
intervening change in controlling law. The first, Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 765 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Biztech, Inc., 149 F.4th 1081 (9th Cir. 2025), rejected a trial court’s imposition of a
California state-law requirement that plaintiff identify its trade secrets with “reasonable
particularity” “at the outset of discovery.” Id. at 1085. After all, federal law “does not
require a plaintiff to identify with particularity its alleged trade secrets from the start.” Id.
By contrast, 3D Systems had years to sufficiently identify its alleged secrets before this
Court finally ruled—at the summary-judgment stage—that the time for doing so had run
out. Indeed, Quintara Biosciences agreed that the particularity inquiry “is usually a matter
for summary judgment or trial.” Id.
In the other case, Zunum Aero, Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. 24-5212, 2025 WL 2364602
(9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial judge’s ruling that plaintiff “failed to
identify any of its alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity.” Id. at *1. Yet the panel
never quoted—nor even summarized—the relevant trade-secret descriptions, so it’s hard
to understand how this nonprecedential opinion altered the legal landscape in any way.
In short, 3D Systems also fails to establish any intervening legal change.
CONCLUSION
3D Systems’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Its motion for leave to file
supplemental authority in support of that motion is GRANTED, and those authorities are
discussed above.
Dated: March 12, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL Document 765 Filed 03/12/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4