in Re PrairieSmarts LLC and Casey Rockwell , 421 S.W.3d 296 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                            COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-13-00338-CV
    IN RE PRAIRIESMARTS LLC AND                                       RELATORS
    CASEY ROCKWELL
    ---------
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    ----------
    OPINION
    ----------
    I. INTRODUCTION
    Relators PrairieSmarts LLC and Casey Rockwell seek a writ of mandamus
    directing Respondent to vacate a September 18, 2013 order granting Real Party
    in Interest TD Ameritrade, Inc.‘s rule 202 petition. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.
    Because we hold that Respondent abused his discretion by granting the rule 202
    petition and because Relators possess no adequate remedy at law, we will
    conditionally grant the writ.
    II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Four former employees of TD Ameritrade subsequently became employed
    by PrairieSmarts.1    Those four individuals are Dr. Renaud Piccinini, Michael
    Chochon, Chris Nagy, and Casey Rockwell. Dr. Piccinini obtained a Ph.D. in
    finance in 2004 and wrote his dissertation on risk and volatility in financial
    markets or so-called ―Black Swan Events.‖ Prior to working for TD Ameritrade,
    Dr. Piccinini helped develop risk models for the holdings of First National Bank of
    Omaha. Dr. Piccinini began working for TD Ameritrade in February 2010, and
    TD Ameritrade terminated Dr. Piccinini on May 2, 2012, after the Portfolio Margin
    model that he had helped to design received approval from the federal regulators
    at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). 2 Chochon began working
    for TD Ameritrade in 2003, and he was the person who had hired Dr. Piccinini to
    perform the above-described work at TD Ameritrade. TD Ameritrade terminated
    Chochon on March 31, 2011. Nagy joined TD Ameritrade in August 1999 and
    served as Managing Director of Order Routing, Sales, and Strategy.             TD
    Ameritrade terminated Nagy on May 26, 2012. Rockwell, a software developer
    and computer programmer, began working for TD Ameritrade in March 2004 and
    voluntarily left in October 2012 to work for PrairieSmarts.
    1
    PrairieSmarts is a Nebraska start-up company.
    2
    TD Ameritrade‘s counsel explained that ―the [Portfolio Margin application]
    is something that the government requires of organizations like TD Ameritrade to
    demonstrate how we‘re managing risk in our clients‘ portfolios. And the
    government allows us to develop proprietary means to do that.‖
    2
    In January 2013, PrairieSmarts filed a patent application3 for a program
    that PrairieSmarts calls PortfolioDefenseTM and began beta testing the program.
    TD Ameritrade thereafter filed a rule 202 petition asserting that it appeared likely
    that PrairieSmarts‘s employees Dr. Piccinini, Chochon, Nagy, and Rockwell
    had—in    designing    PortfolioDefenseTM—misappropriated        confidential   and
    proprietary assets of TD Ameritrade in violation of the nondisclosure provisions in
    their respective employment contracts. By its rule 202 petition, TD Ameritrade
    sought to depose PrairieSmarts and Rockwell and to have PrairieSmarts and
    Rockwell produce various documents at their depositions. PrairieSmarts and
    Rockwell filed answers to the rule 202 petition, denying all allegations in the
    petition and objecting to the depositions and production of the documents sought
    by TD Ameritrade on the ground that both sought privileged trade secret
    information belonging to PrairieSmarts. PrairieSmarts‘s answer also objected to
    venue in Tarrant County.4
    Respondent set a hearing on TD Ameritrade‘s rule 202 petition; a week
    before the hearing, PrairieSmarts filed affidavits from Dr. Piccinini, Chochon,
    3
    Patent applications are maintained by the United States Patent and
    Trademark Office as confidential for eighteen months after the application is filed
    or until issuance of the patent, whichever comes first, and the information
    regarding patent applications may not be released before that time without the
    permission of the applicant. See 35 U.S.C.A. § 122 (West 2001).
    4
    Because the arguments of Relator PrairieSmarts and Relator Rockwell
    are identical in this original proceeding, except as to the venue issue, we
    sometimes refer to both Relators collectively as PrairieSmarts.
    3
    Nagy, and Rockwell, asserting that no confidential information belonging to TD
    Ameritrade was utilized in creating the code for PortfolioDefenseTM and claiming
    that the information sought by TD Ameritrade constituted trade secret information
    belonging to PrairieSmarts.
    At the hearing on TD Ameritrade‘s rule 202 petition, TD Ameritrade argued
    that the facts as set forth below constituted ―smoke,‖ ―red flags[,]‖ or ―the indicia
    of a potential appropriation of trade secrets case‖ sufficient to justify the
    requested discovery.         TD Ameritrade provided Respondent with three
    demonstrative exhibits that it had created utilizing information from the four
    affidavits filed by PrairieSmarts. The three exhibits are one-page typed sheets
    titled, ―Facts About PrairieSmarts‘s Principals,‖ ―Timeline,‖ and ―Facts Justifying
    Investigation.‖ The documents show the dates the four former TD Ameritrade
    employees left TD Ameritrade and began employment with PrairieSmarts,
    provided a comparison of the time it took to create the Profit Margin model at TD
    Ameritrade versus the time it took to create PortfolioDefenseTM at PrairieSmarts,
    and stated that the following facts justified TD Ameritrade‘s investigation via the
    discovery it had requested from PrairieSmarts: the fact that three of the four
    PrairieSmarts   principals    were   directly   responsible   for   TD   Ameritrade‘s
    confidential risk analysis; the fact that PrairieSmarts‘s principals have thirty-one
    combined years of TD Ameritrade tenure; the fact that five days after Dr. Piccinini
    left TD Ameritrade, he co-founded PrairieSmarts; the fact that three months after
    Rockwell started working at PrairieSmarts, a patent application was filed for
    4
    PortfolioDefenseTM, while it took fourteen months after Dr. Piccinini‘s hire at TD
    Ameritrade until the Profit Margin application was submitted to FINRA; the fact
    that similarities exist between the two products—TD Ameritrade contends four
    matching components are observable by comparing PrairieSmarts‘s website and
    the FINRA application for Portfolio Margin;5 and the fact that the products have
    nearly       identical   outcomes,   which    TD   Ameritrade   explained    was
    PortfolioDefenseTM‘s having nearly the same predictive capability as TD
    Ameritrade‘s Portfolio Margin.       TD Ameritrade argued that these ―red flags‖
    concerned TD Ameritrade and established ―that there is a significant advantage
    to be gained for [TD Ameritrade] to do some investigation, some discovery to see
    how these concepts that line up on both sides are actually performed and
    whether they are performed using confidential information [from] TD Ameritrade.‖
    At the hearing, PrairieSmarts argued that the circumstances TD
    Ameritrade had characterized as smoke or red flags were nothing more than
    legal activities. PrairieSmarts asserted that some of its managing members—
    three of whom had been terminated by TD Ameritrade—had gone on to other
    employers before joining PrairieSmarts and had continued to work in the same
    area of expertise. PrairieSmarts contended that it was a mischaracterization to
    say that it took Dr. Piccinini and the team at TD Ameritrade fourteen months to
    create Portfolio Margin because twelve of the months were ―simply TD
    5
    TD Ameritrade also admitted into evidence screen shots from
    PrairieSmarts‘s website and the FINRA application for Portfolio Margin.
    5
    Ameritrade[‗s] using their Portfolio Margin to then get to the one-year audit that
    FINRA would do.‖ PrairieSmarts denied that PortfolioDefenseTM was based on
    any intellectual property of TD Ameritrade and asserted that TD Ameritrade‘s
    Portfolio Margin is different from PortfolioDefenseTM because Portfolio Margin
    was designed for use by brokers—not individual investors; was created to satisfy
    a government-mandated risk analysis requiring brokers to evaluate volatility and
    risk of only 3,000 to 4,000 specifically identified stocks; and is a calculation that
    computes for brokers certain margin requirements for highly leveraged portfolios
    so that brokers can determine when a customer‘s position becomes too risky and
    threatens the broker‘s margin loan. PrairieSmarts contended that, conversely,
    PortfolioDefenseTM was designed for use by individual investors, is not limited in
    its analysis to 3,000 or 4,000 specifically identified stocks, is not required to be
    submitted to FINRA, and that its design constitutes trade secrets of
    PrairieSmarts.       PrairieSmarts    concluded     that   Portfolio   Margin    and
    PortfolioDefenseTM are ―importantly different‖ and that TD Ameritrade should not
    be allowed to take a look ―under the hood‖ at PortfolioDefenseTM only to
    determine that it is not based on TD Ameritrade‘s confidential or proprietary
    assets. PrairieSmarts also claimed that beta testing of PortfolioDefenseTM is
    available through PrairieSmarts‘s website and that TD Ameritrade has the ability
    to participate in the beta testing6 and to determine that way whether
    PortfolioDefenseTM performs the same functions as the Profit Margin model.
    6
    In his affidavit, Dr. Piccinini likens the beta testing to ―a free trial of
    6
    During the hearing, Respondent decided that he would not rely exclusively
    on PrairieSmarts‘s affidavits in ruling on the asserted trade secret privilege but,
    per Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4, would also conduct an in camera
    inspection of the documents sought by TD Ameritrade; Respondent ordered the
    documents‘ ―production within one week in a Bates stamped fashion.‖ Following
    the hearing, PrairieSmarts complied with Respondent‘s instructions and
    submitted documents under seal for an in camera inspection. Those documents
    have been filed with this court under seal.
    Respondent subsequently issued a September 18, 2013 order finding that
    ―the likely benefit of allowing TD Ameritrade to take the requested discovery to
    investigate one or more potential claims outweighs the burden or expense of the
    procedures set out herein.‖ The order granted TD Ameritrade‘s rule 202 petition
    in toto, ordering that the requested depositions be taken within forty-five days
    and that ―each deponent must produce . . . all of the documents requested by TD
    Ameritrade, Inc. as described in its Verified Petition for Rule 202 Deposition.‖
    TD Ameritrade‘s rule 202 petition requested—and Respondent‘s order
    authorized—TD Ameritrade to depose Rockwell and PrairieSmarts and to elicit
    testimony on at least the following topics:
    Microsoft Word[—the user can try the product] without being able to access the
    underlying programming and source code that allows Microsoft Word to operate
    and that is the confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information of
    Microsoft.‖
    7
    a.     Any and all patent applications related to any
    PrairieSmarts tool, software, or system (including but not limited to
    PortfolioDefenseTM) filed by or caused to be filed by PrairieSmarts or
    any one or more of its managing members, including any and all
    patent applications that form the basis of PrairieSmarts‘[s] claims
    that PortfolioDefenseTM is patent pending.
    b.   The time horizon, statistical distribution, and confidence
    interval used in any PrairieSmarts tool, software, or system
    (including but not limited to PortfolioDefenseTM) and whether any
    one or more of the time horizon, statistical distribution, and
    confidence interval support what PrairieSmarts refers to as the
    ―Range of Motion (History).‖
    c.    The approach used in the implied volatility-based model
    of any PrairieSmarts tool, software, or system (including but not
    limited to PortfolioDefenseTM), including how PrairieSmarts converts
    option pricing to what it refers to as the ―Range of Motion (Implied).‖
    d.    Identification of methods, concepts, or ideas imported
    from the dissertation of Renaud ―Ron‖ Piccinini into any
    PrairieSmarts tool, software, or system (including but not limited to
    PortfolioDefenseTM).
    e.     How PortfolioDefense performs calculations in 3/10 of a
    second, as PrairieSmarts claims.
    f.     Whether PrairieSmarts purchased, generated, or
    otherwise acquired historical market, financial, and/or securities data
    for use in designing, developing, and testing PortfolioDefenseTM,
    and, if so, from what source such data was purchased or otherwise
    acquired.
    g.    Whether PrairieSmarts used TD Ameritrade‘s
    Confidential and Proprietary Assets, including historical market,
    financial, and/or securities data, in designing, developing, and
    testing PortfolioDefenseTM.
    h.     The disposition, from October 2012 up to and including
    the present, of any privately purchased external storage device and
    other similar hardware that Mr. Rockwell used while employed by TD
    Ameritrade to access TD Ameritrade resources (including TD
    8
    Ameritrade‘s systems and data,          including    TD   Ameritrade‘s
    Confidential and Proprietary Assets).
    i.    The    design,   development,     and     testing  of
    PortfolioDefenseTM, including the identity of contributors and the
    history of development.
    TD Ameritrade‘s rule 202 petition requested Relators to produce—and
    Respondent‘s order required Relators to produce—for inspection and copying at
    their depositions the following categories of documents:
    a.    Any and all patent applications related to any
    PrairieSmarts tool, software, or system (including but not limited to
    PortfolioDefenseTM) filed by or caused to be filed in any patent office
    by PrairieSmarts or any one or more of its managing members,
    including any and all patent applications that form the basis of
    PrairieSmarts‘[s] claims that PortfolioDefenseTM is patent pending.
    b.     Documents sufficient to show the identity of contributors
    and the history of development of any PrairieSmarts tool, software,
    or system (including but not limited to PortfolioDefenseTM), including
    information from a code repository, project tracking software, version
    control systems, and vendor contracts.
    c.   Documents sufficient to show any and all source(s) from
    which PrairieSmarts purchased, generated, or otherwise obtained
    historical market, financial, and/or securities data for use in
    designing, developing, and testing PortfolioDefenseTM.
    d.    Documents sufficient to show the identification of
    methods, concepts, or ideas imported from the dissertation of
    Renaud ―Ron‖ Piccinini into any PrairieSmarts tool, software, or
    system (including but not limited to PortfolioDefenseTM).
    e.   Documents sufficient to show the time horizon,
    statistical distribution, and confidence interval used in any
    PrairieSmarts tool, software, or system (including but not limited to
    PortfolioDefenseTM).
    9
    f.     Documents sufficient to show the approach used in the
    implied volatility-based model of any PrairieSmarts tool, software, or
    system (including but not limited to PortfolioDefenseTM).
    g.    Documents sufficient to show the manner in which
    PortfolioDefense performs calculations in 3/10 of a second, as
    PrairieSmarts claims.
    The order also contained an ―Attorney‘s Eyes Only‖ provision, limiting
    access of the above information but permitting disclosure to TD Ameritrade of
    ―the general nature of the Attorney‘s Eyes Only Information, without disclosing
    the specifics of any such information, and to the extent such general disclosure is
    necessary for advising [TD Ameritrade].‖
    PrairieSmarts filed this petition for writ of mandamus, and we granted
    temporary emergency relief, staying the depositions and associated document
    production granted by Respondent‘s order.         TD Ameritrade timely filed a
    response; PrairieSmarts timely filed a reply.
    III. THE ISSUES PRESENTED
    In three issues, PrairieSmarts contends in its petition for writ of mandamus
    that TD Ameritrade failed to meet its burden under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
    202 to show that the benefit of possibly avoiding the expense of a lawsuit
    outweighs the burden on PrairieSmarts of disclosing trade secrets, that TD
    Ameritrade failed to meet its burden under Texas Rule of Evidence 507 to show
    how lack of presuit access to PrairieSmarts‘s trade secrets would so impair the
    presentation of TD Ameritrade‘s case on the merits that there is a real threat of
    an unjust result, and that venue for TD Ameritrade‘s rule 202 petition is not
    10
    proper in Tarrant County to obtain the deposition of PrairieSmarts‘s corporate
    representative.
    IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there
    is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Frank Motor Co., 
    361 S.W.3d 628
    , 630–
    31 (Tex.) (orig. proceeding), cert. denied, 
    133 S. Ct. 167
    (2012); In re Prudential
    Ins. Co. of Am., 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A party
    to a rule 202 petition against whom suit is anticipated may seek review of an
    allegedly improper rule 202 order via mandamus. In re Wolfe, 
    341 S.W.3d 932
    ,
    933 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Jorden, 
    249 S.W.3d 416
    , 420 (Tex.
    2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Emergency Consultants, Inc., 
    292 S.W.3d 78
    , 80
    (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]); In re
    Hewlett-Packard, 
    212 S.W.3d 356
    , 360 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, orig.
    proceeding).   A party to a rule 202 proceeding has no adequate remedy by
    appeal if the trial court abused its discretion by ordering discovery that would
    compromise procedural or substantive rights. In re Chernov, 
    399 S.W.3d 234
    ,
    235 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, orig. proceeding).          As in other original
    proceedings, we review a trial court‘s order granting a verified petition to take
    depositions before suit under an abuse of discretion standard. Patton Boggs LLP
    v. Moseley, 
    394 S.W.3d 565
    , 568–69 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, orig. proceeding).
    V. APPLICABLE LAW
    11
    A. Trade Secrets
    A trade secret ―is one of the most elusive and difficult concepts in the law
    to define.‖ Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Ark-Ell Springs, Inc., 
    569 F.2d 286
    , 288 (5th Cir.
    1978). Generally, a trade secret is any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of
    information used in a business, which gives the owner an opportunity to obtain
    an advantage over his competitors who do not know or use it. Taco Cabana Int’l,
    Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc., 
    932 F.2d 1113
    , 1123 (5th Cir. 1991), aff’d, 
    505 U.S. 763
    (1992); In re Bass, 
    113 S.W.3d 735
    , 739 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) (quoting
    Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Altai, Inc., 
    918 S.W.2d 453
    , 455 (Tex. 1994)).
    Combinations of disclosed technologies may constitute a trade secret. See, e.g.,
    Ventura Mfg. Co. v. Locke, 
    454 S.W.2d 431
    , 432–34 (Tex. Civ. App.—San
    Antonio 1970, no writ).
    Texas courts consider the following factors in determining whether the
    material at issue qualifies for the trade secret privilege: (1) the extent to which
    the information is known outside of his business; (2) the extent to which it is
    known by employees and others involved in his business; (3) the extent of the
    measures taken by him to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of
    the information to him and to his competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money
    expended by him in developing the information; and (6) the ease or difficulty with
    which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. In re
    Union Pac. R.R. Co., 
    294 S.W.3d 589
    , 592 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); Bass,
    
    12 113 S.W.3d at 739
    . All six factors need not exist to establish a trade secret
    because trade secrets do not fit neatly into each factor every time and because
    other factors may also be relevant depending on the circumstances of a
    particular case. 
    Bass, 113 S.W.3d at 740
    .
    A litigant may claim a privilege to refuse to disclose a trade secret so long
    as the allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work
    injustice. Tex. R. Evid. 507. Thus, in determining whether a trade secret must
    be disclosed, a trial court utilizes a two-step, burden-shifting procedure. In re
    Cont’l Gen. Tire, Inc., 
    979 S.W.2d 609
    , 613 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). First,
    the party resisting discovery by asserting a trade secret privilege must establish
    that the information sought is, in fact, a trade secret. 
    Id. Once the
    party resisting
    discovery meets this burden, the burden then shifts to the party seeking to obtain
    discovery concerning the trade secret to establish that the information sought is
    necessary for a fair adjudication of its claims. 
    Id. The burden
    on the party seeking discovery of trade secrets requires a
    demonstration with specificity of exactly how the lack of the trade secret
    information will impair the presentation of the case on the merits to the point that
    an unjust result is a real, rather than a merely possible, threat.             In re
    Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 
    106 S.W.3d 730
    , 733 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding).
    The test cannot be satisfied merely by general assertions of unfairness. 
    Id. Nor is
    necessity established by a claim that the information would be useful rather
    than necessary. See In re XTO Res. I, LP, 
    248 S.W.3d 898
    , 905 (Tex. App.—
    13
    Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding). If an alternative means of proof is available
    that would not significantly impair the presentation of the case‘s merits, then the
    information is not necessary. See Union Pac. R.R. 
    Co., 294 S.W.3d at 592
    –93.
    Finally, this specificity showing must be made with regard to each category of
    trade secret information that is sought. In re Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 
    392 S.W.3d 687
    , 696 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, orig. proceeding).              Only if the
    requesting party meets this burden of establishing that the trade secret
    information is necessary for a fair adjudication of its claims should the trial court
    compel disclosure of the trade secret information, subject to an appropriate
    protective order. Cont’l Gen. Tire, 
    Inc., 979 S.W.2d at 613
    .
    B. Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
    Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 permits a person to petition a trial court
    for authorization to take a deposition before suit is filed in two circumstances: (1)
    to perpetuate or obtain the person‘s own testimony or that of any other person for
    use in an anticipated suit; or (2) to investigate a potential claim or suit. Tex. R.
    Civ. P. 202.1(a), (b). The trial court may order that the requested deposition be
    taken only if it expressly finds either (1) that allowing the petitioner to take the
    requested deposition may prevent a failure or delay of justice in an anticipated
    suit or (2) that the likely benefit of allowing the petitioner to take the requested
    deposition to investigate a potential claim outweighs the burden or expense of
    the procedure. In re Does, 
    337 S.W.3d 862
    , 865 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding);
    
    Jorden, 249 S.W.3d at 423
    .
    14
    Rule 202 depositions are not now and never have been intended for
    routine use. 
    Jorden, 249 S.W.3d at 423
    . There are practical as well as due
    process problems with demanding discovery from someone before telling them
    what the issues are. 
    Id. To prevent
    an end-run around discovery limitations that
    would govern the anticipated suit, a rule 202 petitioner cannot obtain by rule 202
    what it would be denied in the anticipated action. 
    Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d at 933
    .
    Accordingly, courts must strictly limit and carefully supervise presuit discovery to
    prevent abuse of the rule. 
    Id. C. To
    Obtain Presuit Discovery of Information that Qualifies as Trade
    Secret Information, the Burdens Imposed Under Rule of Evidence 507 and
    Rule of Civil Procedure 202 Must Both Be Satisfied
    Rule 202.5 provides, ―The scope of discovery in depositions authorized by
    this rule is the same as if the anticipated suit or potential claim had been filed.‖
    Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.5. Thus, the burden-shifting procedure utilized when a party
    to a lawsuit resists discovery by asserting the trade secret privilege set forth in
    rule 507 of the rules of evidence is equally applicable when a party resists
    discovery sought by a rule 202 petition by claiming trade secret privilege. 7
    Accord 
    Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d at 933
    (recognizing presuit discovery under rule 202
    is the same as if the anticipated suit or potential claim had been filed).
    7
    This is the position taken by TD Ameritrade; it argues that ―the Rule 507
    analysis applicable here should be exactly the same as it would be had TD
    Ameritrade actually filed its trade secret misappropriation claim first and then
    sought the same discovery.‖
    15
    A rule 202 petitioner must also establish either that allowing the requested
    deposition may prevent a failure or delay of justice in an anticipated suit or that
    the likely benefit of allowing the requested deposition to investigate a potential
    claim outweighs the burden or expense of the procedure.           Tex. R. Civ. P.
    202.4(a)(1), (2); 
    Does, 337 S.W.3d at 865
    . This is a totally separate burden than
    the burden shifted to a party seeking discovery of information proved by the party
    resisting discovery to constitute trade secret information. Compare 
    Does, 337 S.W.3d at 865
    , with Bridgestone/Firestone, 
    Inc., 106 S.W.3d at 733
    .
    So, a rule 202 petitioner seeking presuit discovery of information that has
    been proven to be trade secret information must first satisfy the burden under
    rule 507 of the rules of evidence of demonstrating the necessity for its discovery
    of the trade secret information by showing with specificity exactly how denial of
    the discovery will impair the presentation of its case on the merits to the extent
    that an unjust result is likely. See Bridgestone/Firestone, 
    Inc., 106 S.W.3d at 733
    ; Cont’l Gen. Tire, 
    Inc., 979 S.W.2d at 613
    . If a rule 202 petitioner satisfies
    this burden of showing the necessity for discovery of the trade secret information,
    the rule 202 petitioner must next show that it is entitled to obtain such trade
    secret information presuit because allowing the requested deposition and
    associated document production may prevent a failure or delay of justice in an
    anticipated suit or that the likely benefit of allowing the requested deposition and
    associated document production to investigate a potential claim outweighs the
    burden or expense of the procedure. Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.4(a)(1), (2); Does, 
    337 16 S.W.3d at 865
    . In summary, a rule 202 petitioner seeking presuit discovery of
    information that has been proven to be trade secret information must satisfy both
    of the two distinct and separate burdens imposed under rule 507 of the rules of
    evidence and under rule 202 of the rules of civil procedure.         See Hewlett-
    
    Packard, 212 S.W.3d at 363
    –64 (addressing both burdens); In re Rockafellow,
    No. 07-11-00066-CV, 
    2011 WL 2848638
    , at *3 (Tex. App.––Amarillo 2011, orig.
    proceeding) (mem. op.) (same).
    D. Analysis
    1. PrairieSmarts Established that the Information Sought by TD Ameritrade
    Concerning PortfolioDefenseTM Constitutes Privileged Trade Secret
    Information
    Dr. Piccinini explained in his affidavit that PortfolioDefenseTM is ―based on
    my life[‘s] work in this area and put into functional computer code using Mr.
    Rockwell‘s computer programing expertise.‖ He stated that the details of how
    PortfolioDefenseTM works and how it was developed are not known outside of
    PrairieSmarts and that it cannot be duplicated by others without access to
    PortfolioDefenseTM‘s underlying programming code and its models. Dr. Piccinini
    and Rockwell are the only PrairieSmarts employees with access to the
    PortfolioDefenseTM computer code and to the details of the methods and models
    used in PortfolioDefenseTM; Nagy and Chochon do not have access.               The
    secrecy of PortfolioDefenseTM is guarded by restricted access to its programming
    code and models through multiple layers of authorization by limiting access to Dr.
    Piccinini and Rockwell, by storing the PortfolioDefenseTM information on secured
    17
    servers protected by a commercial grade firewall, and by refusing to disclose or
    share the PortfolioDefenseTM software or its underlying models with any third
    parties. PortfolioDefenseTM is the only asset of PrairieSmarts and is extremely
    valuable to PrairieSmarts. According to PrairieSmarts, PortfolioDefenseTM is the
    only product of its kind that provides individual investors with information on all
    types of investments so that the value of PortfolioDefenseTM is significant not only
    to PrairieSmarts but also to its competitors. At the time Dr. Piccinini signed his
    affidavit, PrairieSmarts had expended $300,000 to $850,000 and had spent
    months to develop PortfolioDefenseTM. Dr. Piccinini further stated in his affidavit
    that ―PortfolioDefense cannot be duplicated by others without access to
    PortfolioDefense‘s underlying programming and its models. Others may try to
    develop a similar product, . . . but while any such product may perform similar to
    PortfolioDefense, it could not result in the same output assessment of risk even
    with identical input parameters.‖ The documents produced by PrairieSmarts for
    in camera review by Respondent likewise support the trade secrets privilege
    asserted by PrairieSmarts.8
    8
    TD Ameritrade contends that PrairieSmarts does not rely on the
    documents themselves to meet the burden of establishing trade secret status.
    But Relators‘ unopposed motion to file documents under seal that was filed in
    this court explained that PrairieSmarts submitted for in camera review by
    Respondent the documents that it contends are protected and requests that
    those documents be filed under seal in our court as part of the mandamus
    proceeding so that we may examine all of the evidence considered by
    Respondent. Thus, the documents were before Respondent and are before us in
    addressing the issue of trade secret status.
    18
    Applying the trade secret factors enunciated by the Texas Supreme Court,
    each of the factors weighs in favor of Relators; the record establishes and we
    hold that Relators met their burden of showing that all but one category of the
    information sought by TD Ameritrade—both by asking deposition questions on
    the topics listed above9 with the exception of deposition topic (h) and by
    production of documents in the categories listed above—constitutes trade secret
    information.10 See, e.g., Union Pac. R.R. 
    Co., 294 S.W.3d at 591
    –92 (applying
    factors and holding ―Union Pacific‘s affidavits establish trade secret protection
    under the Restatement factors‖); 
    Bass, 113 S.W.3d at 739
    –42 (applying factors
    and holding that relator‘s evidence, including affidavits, established that ―seismic
    data and its interpretations are trade secrets‖ although the fifth factor did not
    weigh in favor of trade secrets protection); Rockafellow, 
    2011 WL 2848638
    , at *3
    (applying factors and holding that relator‘s affidavit established that relator‘s
    supplier list and information related to the identities of suppliers were trade
    secrets).
    9
    See In re Lowe’s Cos., 
    134 S.W.3d 876
    , 879–80 (Tex. App.—Houston
    [14th Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding) (addressing assertion of trade secret privilege
    to information sought in a deposition).
    10
    Respondent‘s order, although containing the ―Attorney‘s Eyes Only‖
    provision, did not make an express finding that PrairieSmarts had established
    that information sought by TD Ameritrade constituted trade secrets; TD
    Ameritrade asserts in its response to PrairieSmarts petition for writ of mandamus
    that the information is not subject to a trade secret privilege. As set forth above,
    the record conclusively establishes that PrairieSmarts proved its trade secret
    privilege, except with regard to deposition topic (h).
    19
    2. TD Ameritrade’s Burden Under Rule of Evidence 507 Not Satisfied
    Once PrairieSmarts met its burden to establish that the information sought
    by TD Ameritrade constituted privileged trade secret information under rule 507
    of the Texas Rules of Evidence, the burden then shifted to TD Ameritrade to
    show that the trade secret information sought is necessary for a fair adjudication
    of TD Ameritrade‘s claims. See Cont’l Gen. Tire, 
    Inc., 979 S.W.2d at 613
    . In its
    second issue, PrairieSmarts argues that TD Ameritrade did not satisfy this
    burden because TD Ameritrade did not produce any evidence or expert
    testimony to support its contention that the trade secret information sought by TD
    Ameritrade from PrairieSmarts is necessary to support any claim against
    PrairieSmarts.11 According to PrairieSmarts, TD Ameritrade has not identified
    any injustice that will ensue if it is not granted pre-suit access to the
    11
    PrairieSmarts also argues that TD Ameritrade cannot meet its burden of
    establishing that the trade secret information sought by TD Ameritrade is
    necessary for the fair adjudication of the merits of an existing claim because
    there is no existing claim. See, e.g., 
    Bass, 113 S.W.3d at 743
    (explaining in a
    non-rule 202 case that ―in order for trade secret production to be material to a
    litigated claim or defense, a claim or defense must first exist‖ and holding as a
    matter of law the claim did not exist); Hewlett-
    Packard, 212 S.W.3d at 363
    (citing
    Bass in a rule 202 proceeding for the proposition that ―[i]n order for a trial court to
    determine whether the trade secret production is necessary for a fair adjudication
    of a claim or defense, a claim or defense must first exist‖ and holding that,
    because no claims existed, the required showing of a specific, real threat of an
    unjust result as opposed to a theoretical, possible threat of an unjust result was
    not possible). In light of rule 202.5‘s provision that ―[t]he scope of discovery in
    depositions authorized by this rule is the same as if the anticipated suit or
    potential claim had been filed,‖ we decline to hold that a rule 202 petitioner can
    never obtain presuit discovery of trade secret information simply because a suit
    has not been filed.
    20
    PortfolioDefense programming but has demonstrated only that it would be
    convenient, possibly less expensive, and a source of ―comfort‖ to it regarding the
    alleged misuse of its property.
    TD Ameritrade contends that it met its burden of establishing necessity
    under the rule 507 burden-shifting analysis.       It references the facts that it
    presented at the hearing in the trial court on its rule 202 petition—these are the
    same facts contained in the three demonstrative exhibits titled, ―Facts About
    PrairieSmarts‘s Principals,‖ ―Timeline,‖ and ―Facts Justifying Investigation.‖
    These facts, TD Ameritrade contends, indicate ―the highly suspect circumstances
    at play here.‖ TD Ameritrade asserts that it established necessity because ―the
    [trade secret] information at issue is the very subject of TD Ameritrade‘s claim of
    misuse or misappropriation.‖
    The facts relied upon by TD Ameritrade to justify investigation into a claim
    against PrairieSmarts are facts relevant to the rule 202 burden, not to the burden
    shifted to TD Ameritrade under rule 507. That is, the facts contained in the three
    demonstrative exhibits titled, ―Facts About PrairieSmarts‘s Principals,‖ ―Timeline,‖
    and ―Facts Justifying Investigation‖ are relevant to establishing whether TD
    Ameritrade met its rule 202 burden to show that the benefit of allowing TD
    Ameritrade to take the requested depositions to investigate a potential claim for
    misuse or misappropriation of proprietary information outweighs the burden and
    expense of the procedure.         But these facts do not rise to the level of a
    particularized showing that PrairieSmarts‘s trade secret information is necessary
    21
    to enable TD Ameritrade to prove of one or more material elements of its claims
    against PrairieSmarts and that it is reasonable to conclude that the information
    sought is essential to a fair resolution of a misuse or misappropriation lawsuit
    against PrairieSmarts—facts required by the rule 507 burden.12                See
    Bridgestone/Firestone, 
    Inc., 106 S.W.3d at 732
    ; Cont’l Gen. Tire, 
    Inc., 979 S.W.2d at 613
    . The facts justifying an investigation alleged by TD Ameritrade
    and asserted at the hearing on its rule 202 petition concerning the ―highly
    suspect circumstances at play here‖ certainly establish that PrairieSmarts‘s trade
    secret information might be useful to TD Ameritrade in prosecuting a lawsuit. But
    merely proving that trade secret information might be useful—even useful in
    preparing an expert report with the least amount of uncertainty—does not prove
    that disclosure of the trade secret information is necessary or essential to a fair
    resolution of TD Ameritrade‘s claims. See Cont’l Gen. Tire, 
    Inc., 979 S.W.2d at 611
    ; XTO Res. I, 
    LP, 248 S.W.3d at 905
    .          Although the facts justifying an
    investigation by TD Ameritrade demonstrate the possible threat of an unjust
    result in a misuse or misappropriation of trade secrets claim, they do not,
    standing alone, satisfy the required higher standard of demonstrating a real
    threat of an unjust result.    See 
    Bridgestone/Firestone, 106 S.W.3d at 734
    (explaining that ―[t]he mere possibility of unfairness is not enough to warrant
    disclosure‖ of trade secret information). The facts justifying an investigation by
    12
    TD Ameritrade does not link the requested trade secret discovery to
    proof of any element of any cause of action.
    22
    TD Ameritrade likewise do not establish that the only means available to TD
    Ameritrade to discover whether Dr. Piccinini, Chochon, Nagy, and Rockwell
    misused or misappropriated TD Ameritrade‘s confidential, proprietary information
    is by the production of the trade secret documents and information listed in TD
    Ameritrade‘s rule 202 petition and ordered produced by Respondent. See Union
    Pac. R.R. 
    Co., 294 S.W.3d at 593
    .13 In summary, the facts presented by TD
    Ameritrade as justifying an investigation are relevant to a determination of rule
    202.4(a)(2)‘s requirement that ―the likely benefit of allowing the [rule 202]
    petitioner to take the requested deposition to investigate a potential claim
    outweighs the burden or expense of the procedure,‖14 but they do not satisfy TD
    Ameritrade‘s burden under rule 507 to establish ―with specificity exactly how the
    lack of the [trade secret] information will impair the presentation of the case on
    the merits to the point that an unjust result is a real, rather than a merely
    possible, threat.‖ Bridgestone/Firestone, 
    Inc., 106 S.W.3d at 733
    .
    13
    While evidence that trade secret information is not available through any
    other means is not a required showing, it is evidence supporting a finding of
    necessity for disclosure. See Union Pac. R.R. 
    Co., 294 S.W.3d at 593
    .
    14
    TD Ameritrade also argues that Respondent ―would have been within its
    discretion to include consideration of the protective order‘s terms and conditions
    in its weighing of the ultimate likely benefit and the burden.‖ That a trial court has
    ordered the parties to enter into a protective order with respect to trade secret
    information, however, does not dispense with the requesting party‘s burden to
    establish the necessity for the discovery of the trade secret information. See
    
    Hewlett-Packard, 212 S.W.3d at 364
    (citing Cont’l Gen. Tire, 
    Inc., 979 S.W.2d at 610
    ).
    23
    Because PrairieSmarts established that all of the information sought by TD
    Ameritrade in its verified rule 202 petition, with the exception of deposition topic
    (h), constitutes trade secret information, and because TD Ameritrade failed to
    satisfy the burden under rule 507 of the rules of evidence of establishing
    necessity, we hold that Respondent abused his discretion by ordering the presuit
    depositions and the document production. See 
    Bass, 113 S.W.3d at 738
    (―If a
    trial court orders production once trade secret status is proven, but the party
    seeking production has not shown a necessity for the requested materials, the
    trial court‘s action is an abuse of discretion.‖).   We sustain Relators‘ second
    issue.15
    VI. CONCLUSION
    Having determined that Respondent abused his discretion by issuing an
    order permitting presuit discovery of information and documents that were proven
    to be subject to a trade secrets privilege in the absence of proof of necessity by
    TD Ameritrade, we conditionally grant the writ. Respondent is directed to vacate
    his September 18, 2013 order authorizing the presuit depositions of Rockwell
    and PrairieSmarts and compelling the production of documents concerning
    PortfolioDefenseTM.16 Because we are confident that Respondent will comply
    15
    Because PrairieSmarts‘s second issue is dispositive, we need not
    address its other issues.
    16
    Although deposition topic (h) in TD Ameritrade‘s rule 202 petition does
    not seek trade secret information, because rule 202‘s benefit-burden analysis will
    be different given the viability of only one topic on which only Rockwell may be
    24
    with this directive, the writ will issue only if Respondent fails to do so.      Our
    disposition of this original proceeding serves to lift the stay previously imposed by
    this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b).
    /s/ Sue Walker
    SUE WALKER
    JUSTICE
    PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
    MEIER, J. filed a concurring opinion.
    DELIVERED: January 23, 2014
    deposed, this provision must likewise be vacated. Nothing in this opinion,
    however, precludes further action in the trial court by the parties, if they so
    choose, to attempt to obtain a presuit deposition concerning deposition topic (h)
    from Rockwell only, not PrairieSmarts. And nothing in this opinion precludes
    Respondent from hearing such a request or ruling on it after conducting the rule
    202.4(a)(2) benefit-burden test.
    25