134 F.4th 1078
10th Cir.2025Background
- Michael Hooper, a former Inside Sales Manager at Double Eagle Alloys, Inc., left to work for competitor Ace Alloys, LLC and took 2,660 files containing Double Eagle’s business information.
- Double Eagle alleged that these files contained trade secrets (specifications, pricing, and customer drawings) and sued Hooper and Ace Alloys for trade-secret violations, misappropriation of confidential business information, and civil conspiracy.
- Discovery took place and both sides moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, holding Double Eagle failed to sufficiently identify its trade secrets or show the information was confidential.
- Double Eagle appealed, challenging the court’s rulings on identification of trade secrets, confidentiality, and the dependent civil conspiracy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficient Identification of Trade Secrets | Double Eagle argued it identified trade secrets with enough detail | Defendants argued the descriptions were overbroad | Court held Double Eagle did not identify with particularity |
| Confidentiality of Information | Double Eagle claimed business information was confidential | Defendants: info was shared with customers/publicly | Court found insufficient evidence of secrecy |
| Underlying Tort for Civil Conspiracy | Civil conspiracy viable if trade-secret/misappropriation claims survive | No claim if underlying tort fails | Dismissal of all underlying claims precluded conspiracy |
| Opportunity to Supplement Evidence | Double Eagle claimed it was not allowed to present more evidence | Defendants: procedure was fair, opportunity given | Court found adequate notice and procedure complied |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvey Barnett, Inc. v. Shidler, 338 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing when a combination of public elements can form a trade secret)
- Sw. Stainless, LP v. Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2009) (disclosure of prices to customers can defeat trade secret status)
- Cent. Plastics Co. v. Goodson, 537 P.2d 330 (Okla. 1975) (necessary to show the information is unique to the employer, not general to the trade)
- Brock v. Thompson, 948 P.2d 279 (Okla. 1997) (under Oklahoma law, civil conspiracy requires an underlying tort)