Brescia sued Angelin and others for misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims. The trial court entered judgment of dismissal after sustaining respondents' demurrer to Brescia's third amended cross-complaint; the appellate court reversed.

After a dispute at a trade show where Brescia accused Angelin and his company of stealing his ideas, Angelin sued Brescia for trade libel. In response, Brescia filed a cross-complaint for misappropriation of trade secrets. Brescia developed a pudding product with the assistance of a food scientist, Scinto. The high protein, low carbohydrate qualities of the pudding were unique. Brescia contracted with two companies, Performance Worldwide USA, Inc. ("PW") and Instone, LLC, for the sale and distribution of his pudding, subject to confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions. At the time, Angelin worked for PW, but later left to form his own company, Freedom Foods, Inc. Freedom and Instone began producing and selling a pudding allegedly based on Brescia's formula and business plan. Brescia added Sylvester Stallone, Instone's Chairman, and Arnold, Instone's CEO, as individual cross-defendants. Only Stallone and Arnold are parties to this appeal; both argued to the trial court that Brescia had not identified his trade secret with particularity.

The trade secret claimant did not need to particularize how the alleged trade secret differed from matters already known to skilled persons in the field. The statute at issue required only identification of the trade secret with reasonable particularity. Brescia's August 2007 trade secret designation met the reasonable particularity standard of Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210. Brescia named two alleged trade secrets: his pudding formula and his manufacturing process. Brescia claimed that his formula produced a unique high protein, low carbohydrate pudding unlike any other healthy alternative pudding on the market. Brescia particularly described the details of his formula, listing the fifteen specific ingredients by common name and the percentage of the total pudding. Brescia also listed these same fifteen ingredients by their supplier and brand name. Brescia particularly described each step in the mixing, testing, and code marking of the pudding. This showing was adequate to permit respondents to investigate whether the alleged trade secrets were within the public domain and to prepare a defense. The trial court identified no deficiency in the trade secret designation that would hamper its ability to protect the parties' proprietary information or to determine the scope of relevant discovery.