{"id":321,"date":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=321"},"modified":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-02T12:00:00","slug":"hoffman-goli-nutrition-cd-cal-grants-summary-judgment-vmg-trade-secret-ownership","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=321","title":{"rendered":"Hoffman v. Goli Nutrition \u2014 C.D. Cal. Grants Summary Judgment to VMG Investors on Trade Secret Claim Where Vitamin Friends Lacked Ownership"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Hoffman v. Goli Nutrition, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-02<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:23-cv-06597<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Defend Trade Secrets Act; trade secret ownership; summary judgment; investor liability; Rule 12(b)(6) repeat dismissal<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Sharon and Odelya Hoffman, along with affiliated entities including Vitamin Friends LLC and RGL Holdings LLC, sued the founders and investors behind Goli Nutrition \u2014 the popular apple cider vinegar gummy maker \u2014 alleging that Goli stole their gummy formulation, supplier contacts, and customer relationships. After three rounds of pleadings and earlier dismissal orders that pared down the case, only a Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) claim against Goli’s private equity investors (the VMG defendants) and several smaller claims remained.<\/p>\n

The VMG parties \u2014 venture capital funds that invested in Goli \u2014 moved for summary judgment on Vitamin Friends’ DTSA claim, arguing that Vitamin Friends did not actually own the supplier-related trade secrets at issue. Vitamin Friends had never manufactured the gummies commercially; instead, a related entity called Better Nutritionals had been the actual manufacturer and the one buying ingredients from suppliers. The VMG parties also moved to dismiss several previously-dismissed state-law claims that the plaintiffs had again asserted in their third amended complaint.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Christina Snyder granted summary judgment for the VMG investors on the DTSA claim, finding that Vitamin Friends could not demonstrate ownership of the supplier-related trade secrets it accused VMG of misappropriating. The undisputed evidence \u2014 including plaintiff Sharon Hoffman’s own deposition testimony \u2014 showed that Better Nutritionals (not Vitamin Friends) had identified, dealt with, and paid the gummy-ingredient suppliers. Hoffman’s after-the-fact declaration claiming Vitamin Friends owned the supplier information was self-serving and uncorroborated, and could not raise a triable issue of fact under Ninth Circuit summary judgment standards.<\/p>\n

The court also held that arguments raised for the first time in interrogatory responses \u2014 about additional alleged trade secrets not pleaded in the operative complaint \u2014 could not be considered, because a party cannot effectively amend a pleading through discovery responses. The court further dismissed the plaintiffs’ repeated fraud, breach-of-fiduciary-duty, RICO, and intentional infliction claims with prejudice, because they were essentially identical to claims previously dismissed and the plaintiffs had already had ample opportunity to plead them properly.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n