Massachusetts state court judges in October dealt with missing details in a trade secrets case, missing lawyers in a proposed class action over COVID-19-related refund demands, and missing evidence during summary judgment proceedings.

Here are four notable rulings from Suffolk County Superior Court's Business Litigation Session:

Uber Entitled to Specifics in Trade Secrets Suit

Cambridge-based software startup Zemcar, which does business as Grip Mobility Co., must be more specific about the trade secrets it has accused Uber Technologies of stealing, even if Uber presumably knows what information Grip shared during a two-year rider safety pilot, Suffolk County Superior Court Justice Debra Squires-Lee ruled on Oct. 20.

Grip sued Uber last year, alleging the ride-hailing company ripped off its technology for a real-time audio and video feed during the two-year pilot partnership in Brazil for use in its own app. After Uber lost a bid for dismissal earlier this year, the case proceeded to discovery.

The Oct. 20 order denied Grip's motion to compel discovery without providing a more detailed "trade secret list" as required by Massachusetts law. The Massachusetts Trade Secret Act requires "sufficient particularity" so that a court can determine how best to protect the material, while still allowing the other party to prepare its defense.

"I have carefully reviewed the trade secret list here," Justice Squires-Lee said. "I am not persuaded it is entirely sufficient." Instead, the list in the discovery request mainly describes functionality, rather than things like code, technical specs and test results, according to the ruling.

"Although I am sympathetic to the argument that Uber knows precisely what Grip sent it — the parties worked together for two years after all — the purpose of the trade secret list is for this court to guide discovery and the finder of fact to determine misappropriation," Judge Squires-Lee said. "The list provided is not sufficient to determine the parameters of discovery."

The judge gave Grip 30 days to revise its list, and granted a temporary stay on discovery for Uber.

Grip Mobility is represented by Douglas F. Gansler, Danielle Vincenti Tully, Michael B. Powell, Jonathan Watkins, John T. Augelli and Michael A. Russo of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP and Benjamin L. Hincks and Michael S. Day of Torres Scammon Hincks & Day LLP.

Uber is represented by Anthony S. Fiotto, Mitchell E. Feldman, Arturo J. González, Shaelyn K. Dawson, Meredith L. Angueira and Tannyr M. Pasvantis of Morrison Foerster LLP.

The case is Zemcar Inc. d/b/a Grip Mobility Co. v. Uber Technologies Inc., case number 2484CV01525, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Insurer Failed to Support Claim in Boat Explosion

An insurer pursuing a subrogation claim against the builder of a 2-day-old boat that was totaled in an explosion on the North Shore in 2022 has so far failed to support its case for piercing the corporate veil to hold the company's owner personally liable, Justice Squires-Lee concluded in an Oct. 22 decision.

Nor has Markel American Insurance Co. provided an explanation for why it failed to serve the owner of California-based Procom Engineering Inc., which does business as SeaPiper, with an amended complaint, according to the decision, which preliminarily dismissed the company owner, Wesley Zhou, as a defendant.

Markel is trying recover nearly $262,000 it paid to the owner of "The Grey Ghost," a SeaPiper 35 Trawler, after the Aug. 15, 2022, explosion. The boat's owner, Joseph Donovan, had taken delivery two days earlier and had spent the night of the 14th into the 15th onboard, when he turned on a propane stove to make coffee, setting off the explosion.

Markel initially reached a settlement based on SeaPiper's "financial distress," but later filed a complaint seeking damages from both the company and Zhou, according to the ruling.

Markel alleges that Zhou controlled the company's finances and moved money around to avoid SeaPiper's obligations.

"Markel includes no facts, as opposed to conclusory statements, that would support piercing the corporate veil to hold Zhou personally liable," Justice Squires-Lee said.

The judge gave Markel until Nov. 7 to provide service — but also warned that unless it can also demonstrate some basis for a claim against Zhou, the counts against him are unlikely to be revived.

As for the claims against SeaPiper, the judge denied the company's motion to dismiss based on a mediation clause in the sales contract, finding that it does not bar a lawsuit, but ordered the parties to attempt to resolve the dispute to make "the most efficient use of the parties' and judicial resources."

Procom Engineering d/b/a SeaPiper is represented by Yue Zheng of MG+M The Law Firm LLP.

Markel American Insurance is represented by Bruce H. Raymond, Benjamin A. Pushner and Kimberly A. Caplik of McGivney Kluger Clark & Intoccia PC.

The case is Markel American Insurance v. Procom Engineering Inc., case number 2484CV01074, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

No Face, No Case, Judge Says After Atty No-Shows

Justice Squires-Lee declined to reconsider her decision to toss a proposed class action based on repeated failures by plaintiffs' counsel to appear for status conferences — including for the defendants' motion to dismiss the case for that very reason.

"The extreme irony of [the] plaintiff failing to appear to defend against a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was acute," Justice Squires-Lee said in her Oct. 17 order denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal.

The 2021 complaint was brought on behalf of a proposed class of students whose educational tours with EF Explore America Inc. were canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs had been offered partial refunds or replacement trips the following year.

The complaint, which alleged breach of contract and consumer protection law violations, was "nearly identical" to a pending federal lawsuit against the company, leading to a stay of the state court case, according to the ruling. That stay was lifted last year after the First Circuit affirmed a denial of class certification.

However, plaintiffs' counsel did not show up for an April 24 hearing in Suffolk County Superior Court, appearing via Zoom only after a clerk called. A judge during that hearing ordered the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order.

When plaintiffs' counsel did not take part in drafting such an order, according to Justice Squires-Lee, EF filed its motion to dismiss.

The judge set up a hearing on Aug. 6 for that motion and the plaintiffs' motion to amend the original complaint.

"Counsel did not even appear at the hearing to argue against the conclusion that they had been dilatory in prosecuting the case," Justice Squires-Lee said.

The judge rejected arguments by plaintiffs' lead counsel, from California, that he had not received notice of the Aug. 6 hearing, saying it was undisputed that local counsel had been given notice. Local counsel, the judge said, had an obligation under the Rules of Professional Conduct to ensure that all attorneys be made aware of hearing dates and orders.

"Nearly the exact circumstance occurred here," Justice Squires-Lee said. "A failure of local counsel to inform out of state counsel and new incoming 'lead' counsel of a hearing, and the failure of all counsel to check the public docket in this matter or communicate with the clerk. Such conduct is not excusable neglect."

Beyond that, the judge said she was not persuaded that the claim had any merit.

The plaintiffs are represented by John Roddy and Elizabeth Ryan of Bailey & Glasser LLP, Barry M. Altman and Brian T. Corrigan of Altman & Altman, Sean T. Carnathan of O'Connor Carnathan & Mack LLC, Michael J. Duffy of Tymann Davis & Duffy LLP and James R. Hawkins of James Hawkins APLC.

EF Explore America Inc. is represented by Harvey J. Wolkoff and Gregory Mallow of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

The case is Godines v. EF Explore America Inc. et al., case number 2184CV01327, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

No Second Chance for Debt Buyer Who Withheld Evidence

A debt buyer who was ordered to pay restitution to hundreds of consumers who were sued in small claims court over debts he couldn't prove he had the right to collect can't get "a do-over" based on evidence he chose to withhold during summary judgment proceedings, Justice Kenneth Salinger ruled.

Andrew Metcalf, who runs a debt acquisition and collection firm, was found by Justice Salinger to have engaged in unfair debt collection practices after failing to provide chain-of-title evidence, as required by Massachusetts law.

In June, the judge certified a class and subclass of consumers sued by Metcalf since 2020, voided hundreds of prior judgments, dismissed hundreds of other still-pending cases, and ordered Metcalf to refund consumers who had paid judgments. Final judgment was entered on Sept. 8.

Metcalf asked the court to reconsider and reopen the case to let him submit what he says is evidence of his ownership of the debts, in the form of spreadsheets he says he was provided when he purchased them.

Justice Salinger denied the request in an Oct. 29 ruling.

"The court will not reopen the summary judgment record to given Metcalf another chance to submit additional evidence that he had in his possession all along, could have provided as part of his summary judgment papers, but chose to withhold," Justice Salinger said, finding that Metcalf had waived his rights to use the spreadsheets by not disclosing them.

"Court hearings on significant motions are not 'dry runs' or 'dress rehearsals;' losing parties are not entitled to 'do-overs' where they present additional evidence or arguments that they could have, but failed to, present the first time around," Justice Salinger wrote.

The plaintiffs are represented by Alexa Lebach Rosenbloom of the Harvard Law School Legal Services Center and Jennifer Wagner of the National Consumer Law Center.

Metcalf is representing himself.

The case is Royal et al. v. Metcalf et al., case number 2384CV01302, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.