Garner Environmental Services, Inc. v. First in Rescue, Safety, and Training, LLC, Adolph Roy Creager, Logan Reininger, Shelley Matthews, Tom Henderson and Bo Atkinson, 01-16-00388-CV

Garner Environmental (founded 1981) alleged that former employees who left in 2008 to form FIRST misappropriated Garner’s customer lists, contacts, class schedules, and pricing to divert business.
In January 2009 Garner’s general counsel, Risner, sent a cease‑and‑desist letter to FIRST alleging unlawful use of Garner’s confidential information and threatened suit; Risner later admitted the letter was based on suspicion from lost clients, not concrete proof.
FIRST’s counsel replied in January 2009 denying wrongdoing and noting the former employees had no non‑compete restrictions and customer lists might be public/ascertainable.
Correspondence about possible litigation ceased by February 2009 and Garner did not file suit.
In late 2013/2014 Garner reviewed documents filed in separate litigation by FIRST that Garner concluded originated from Garner; Garner sued FIRST in July 2015 for misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, wrongful computer access, and civil conspiracy.
FIRST moved for summary judgment arguing all claims were barred by the statute of limitations; the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed Garner’s claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garner’s claims are time‑barred or tolled by the discovery rule	The discovery rule delays accrual until Garner actually discovered in 2014 that FIRST had taken and used Garner’s confidential information	Limitations accrued no later than 2009 because Garner suspected misconduct and sent a cease‑and‑desist; thus claims are time‑barred	Reversed: suspicions and accusations in 2009 were insufficient; defendant failed to prove as a matter of law when Garner discovered or should have discovered the injury, so discovery rule prevents summary judgment on limitations

Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry‑Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016) (mere suspicion does not establish discovery of wrongful use of trade secrets)
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (defendant asserting limitations must prove accrual date and negate discovery rule)
Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (discovery rule applies where injury is inherently undiscoverable and evidence objectively verifiable)
Am. Star Energy & Minerals Corp. v. Stowers, 457 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. 2015) (definition of accrual and when wrongful act causes legal injury)
Cosgrove v. Cade, 468 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2015) (discovery rule defers accrual until injured party knows or should know of wrongful act)