DynCorp International v. AAR Airlift Group, Inc.
664 F. App'x 844
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- DynCorp, an incumbent contractor on the State Department’s WASS program, alleged AAR misappropriated its trade secrets after three former DynCorp employees joined AAR and an East subcontractor email accidentally sent DynCorp’s “Profit Margin Analysis” (PMA) was opened by an AAR part‑time employee.
- The PMA was a detailed spreadsheet containing financial, staffing, pricing, and operational data about DynCorp’s incumbent WASS contract; the document was emailed to an outside DynCorp subcontractor and then (briefly) viewed and forwarded by an AAR part‑time employee.
- AAR promptly instructed deletion, imaged the personal computer, delivered the document to the State Department, and notified the contracting officer; DynCorp separately received a whistleblower report that two former employees (Thomas and Pilkington) provided confidential DynCorp materials to AAR during AAR’s bid preparation.
- DynCorp sued under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (FUTSA) and asserted related common‑law claims; the district court dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to identify trade secrets with reasonable particularity and for failing to allege misappropriation of the PMA.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo, accepting complaint allegations as true, and held that (1) DynCorp had not plausibly alleged AAR misappropriated the PMA because AAR took affirmative steps not to acquire or use it, but (2) the complaint did adequately plead with reasonable particularity the trade secrets allegedly obtained from former employees Thomas and Pilkington (employee lists, salary/pay differentials, pricing/staffing data, and a portfolio shown to AAR’s bid team).
- The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, leaving preemption and other issues for the district court to consider in the first instance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acquisition alone can satisfy FUTSA misappropriation where PMA was emailed to an AAR affiliate | DynCorp: FUTSA §688.002(2)(a) covers acquisition; Cline improperly emailed PMA and AAR knew it came from improper means | AAR: AAR did not acquire or use PMA; it deleted, turned it over to government, and took steps to avoid acquisition | Held: No plausible misappropriation of the PMA — facts show AAR avoided acquiring/using it, so dismissal on PMA claim affirmed |
| Whether complaint identified trade secrets obtained from former employees with reasonable particularity | DynCorp: Complaint specifies personnel lists, salaries, pay differentials, pricing, staffing and technical data tied to WASS contract | AAR: Allegations too vague/broad to identify trade secrets before discovery | Held: Allegations about Thomas and Pilkington sufficiently particular (e.g., portfolio, timing, recipients) to survive 12(b)(6) |
| Pleading standard applicable to trade‑secret identification at dismissal stage | DynCorp: need only plausible factual allegations and notice to defendant | AAR: plaintiff must identify trade secrets with particularity before discovery | Held: Federal Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard controls; plaintiff must give defendant notice but need not meet a heightened pre‑discovery evidentiary showing |
| Scope of appellate review and remaining issues on remand | DynCorp: challenge dismissal overall, seeks remand for merits | AAR: dismissal proper on all counts because FUTSA not shown | Held: Reversed & remanded for further proceedings; district court to consider preemption and other issues in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (bellwether for federal pleading plausibility standard)
- AAR Mfg., Inc. v. Matrix Composites, 98 So. 3d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (trade‑secret identification with reasonable particularity before discovery)