Perhaps you're remembering a recent case about whether LinkedIn contacts could qualify as trade secrets, which tested where to draw the line:

http://blogs.orrick.com/trade-secrets-watch/2014/10/27/new-s...

Again, here are the current California trade secrets statutes:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...

"3426.8.This title shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this title among states enacting it."

That's the law. It overturns everything prior. All commonlaw interpretations (the closest legal thing to tradition) before it are void in the face of this new law.

Fyi. California's law is actual a cut-and-past of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as adopted by basically every other state in the union. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Trade_Secrets_Act.

Here you go:

Yes, the UTSA statute is "the law". But it's not the ONLY law. Where there are gaps, courts look to case law, just like in any other area of law. And the UTSA was drafted with the old common law in mind, continuing much of it, but codifying it. That's why courts DO look at the older common law to inform their interpretations of the UTSA.

This is from page 1 of the Prefatory Note in the 1985 final draft of the UTSA:

"The Uniform Act codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection, preserving its essential distinctions from patent law."

With that, I'm done with this thread. We are way off-topic since the lawsuit in the original post doesn't even have a trade secret claim. I'm also done dispensing free legal advice for the night.