Animal Legal DEF. Fund v. Foster Poultry Farms, 335 A.3d 377 (April 15, 2025)
Judges: BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J. OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.
Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”) appeals from the order quashing a foreign subpoena compelling Farmers1 Pride, Inc. (“Farmers Pride”) to produce information regarding their poultry manufacturing processes. We affirm.
The discoverability of trade secrets is “uniquely within the discretion of the trial judge,” and the court’s ruling will not be reversed “unless [it is] deemed to represent an abuse of discretion.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Lin, 2010 PA Super 26, 992 A.2d 132, 143 (Pa.Super. 2010) “Abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court renders a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; that fails to apply the law; or that is motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.” Carlino E. Brandywine, L.P. v. Brandywine Vill. Assocs., 2021 PA Super 147, 260 A.3d 179, 196 (Pa.Super. 2021).
This Court has defined a “trade secret” as any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it. It may be a formula for a chemical compound, a process of manufacturing, treating or preserving materials, a pattern for a machine or other device, or a list of customers.
Rohm & Haas Co., 992 A.2d at 143 n.4; see also Rest. (Second) of Torts § 757, comment b; Felmlee v. Lockett, 466 Pa. 1, 351 A.2d 273, 277 (Pa. 1976). The court must consider the following factors to determine whether certain information is a trade secret:
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 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.
Crum, 907 A.2d at 585. Once the moving party establishes that the information sought is a trade secret, the burden shifts to the party seeking discovery “to demonstrate that production of the trade secret is relevant and necessary, and that the necessity outweighs the harm of disclosure.” Id. at 587.
After concluding that the requested information consisted of trade secrets, the court considered whether “the information is relevant and necessary” to ALDF’s suit, and, if so, “whether the necessity outweighs the harm of disclosure.” Id. at 16. The court first found that while “the water usage of other chicken processors is relevant in the California litigation,” Farmers Pride’s information would be of questionable utility to proving Foster over-consumes water.
Foster Farms indicates that its facility was built in 1959, while Farmers Pride completed its new facility in 2021. Foster Farms notes that Farmers Pride produces organic products while Foster Farms does not. Foster Farms indicates that there is a multitude of differences between the two plants and that it would be unable to implement the processes used by Farmers Pride in its facility.
The court’s decision to quash the subpoena was not an abuse of discretion. The court duly considered the requisite factors before determining the requested information was trade secrets. It then properly weighed ALDF’s need for the information against the potential harm disclosure would have on Farmer’s Pride. ALDF’s argument in California — that Foster should implement Farmers Pride’s unique water-saving processes — directly contradicts its current argument that disclosure of information regarding those processes would not result in their duplication. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.
