3M Company v. Continental Diamond Tool Corp
1:21-cv-00274
| N.D. Ind. | Jun 20, 2025Background
- 3M Company and subsidiary 3M Innovative Properties sue Continental Diamond Tool (CDT) and former 3M employees (Paul Christy, Timothy Keene, Chad Wesner) alleging recruitment to obtain and use 3M confidential information and trade secrets after their 2021 departures.
- Claims: tortious interference with 3M Employee Agreements (Count I), DTSA and IUTSA misappropriation (Counts II–III), unfair competition (Count IV), and individual breach of contract (Count V).
- Key factual allegations: former employees moved to CDT in 2021; 3M alleges files, technical drawings, customer contacts, pricing, testing data, and contractor/OEM information were taken or used; McGinnis (3M ops manager) identified nine categories of alleged trade secrets.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment; 3M opposed and submitted McGinnis declaration to specify trade secrets; defendants raised evidentiary objections which the court largely resolved.
- Court ruling (partial summary judgment): some defendants prevailed on certain claims, but material disputes remain—notably tortious interference as to CDT for Christy and Keene, trade-secret claims survive for trade secrets 1–7, and an unfair competition (passing off) claim survives as to a specific spindle drawing tied to CDT and Christy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference with 3M Employee Agreements (Count I) | CDT recruited former 3M employees to induce breaches (use confidential info, solicit colleagues, service accounts) | Hiring competitors is proper competition; no wrongful means; conduct justified | Denied as to CDT for Christy and Keene (genuine dispute whether CDT induced breaches); granted for CDT as to other former employees; summary judgment for individual defendants Christy and Wesner on Count I. |
| Trade-secret misappropriation (DTSA & IUTSA, Counts II–III) | 3M identifies specific trade secrets via McGinnis (drawings, specs, testing/results, contractor/OEM info, 53 customer contacts, pricing) | 3M failed to identify trade secrets with required specificity for summary judgment | Denied for trade secrets 1–7 (survive to trial); granted for trade secrets 8–9 (forward-looking plans and compilations) for lack of specificity. |
| Unfair competition (Count IV: employee raiding and passing off) | Employee raiding: CDT improperly poached to exploit 3M know-how; Passing off: CDT marketed 3M spindle design as its own | Employee-raiding is duplicative of Count I and lacks distinct proof; alleged passing-off lacks public-facing evidence for some items | Employee-raiding claim dismissed as abandoned; passing-off claim survives against CDT and Christy re: the 3M ASSM MK2 spindle drawing but summary judgment granted as to Wesner’s email-based allegation. |
| Breach of contract (Count V — Wesner solicitation) | Wesner solicited former 3M customers in violation of non-solicit clause (last 3 years) | No evidence Wesner solicited or serviced accounts that he had called on during his last 3 years at 3M | Granted for Wesner — 3M failed to show solicitation of protected customers within the contractual period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winkler v. V.G. Reed & Sons, 638 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind. 1994) (adopts Restatement factors and asks whether defendant's interference was fair and reasonable)
- Am. Consulting, Inc. v. Hannum Wagle & Cline Eng'g, Inc., 136 N.E.3d 208 (Ind. 2019) (discusses standards for absence of justification in interference claims)
- Zemco Mfg., Inc. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 759 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (plaintiff must identify trade secrets and carry burden of proof)
- IDX Sys. Corp. v. Epic Sys. Corp., 285 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2002) (requires specificity in identifying trade secrets at summary judgment)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Laird, 622 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. 1993) (trade-secret identification and proof requirements)
- Beanstalk Grp., Inc. v. AM Gen. Corp., 283 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2002) (rejects requirement of ill will; interference must be intentional and unjustified)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden and standards)