Hoffenmer, Inc. v. Slesinski
1:23-cv-03878
N.D. Ill.Jun 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Inc., a compliance and consulting firm in the trucking industry, hired Defendant Slesinski, who later formed a competing company, NCC, with his wife while still employed by Plaintiff.
- While employed, Slesinski allegedly accessed and emailed himself proprietary and confidential data, templates, and systems belonging to Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff required employees with access to confidential information to sign security agreements and implemented password protection and access restrictions.
- Plaintiff discovered overlaps between its proprietary materials and NCC’s, as well as evidence of misappropriated client data.
- Plaintiff sued Slesinski, NCC, and Dobosz for trade secret misappropriation, various federal and Illinois statutory violations, and related state law torts.
- Defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing legal insufficiency and statutory preemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of trade secret allegations (DTSA/ITSA) | Info was non-public, valuable, and protected by reasonable steps | Data was public or insufficiently identified; not trade secret | Plaintiff sufficiently alleged trade secrets; motion denied |
| Misappropriation allegation sufficiency | Acquisition of trade secrets by improper means suffices | Must allege actual "use" and damages, not just acquisition | Alleging unauthorized acquisition is enough at this stage |
| Damages in trade secret and CFAA claims | Pleading irreparable harm and investigatory expenses is enough | Damages are speculative; loss must relate to system impairment (CFAA) | General harm and $5k+ investigation cost suffice; motion denied |
| SCA damages requirement | Can recover statutory and punitive damages without showing losses | Must allege actual damages or profits | Statutory and punitive damages recoverable; motion denied |
| State law claim preemption by ITSA | Tortious acts go beyond trade-secret misappropriation | All tort claims based on same core facts are preempted by ITSA | ITSA does not preempt these claims if not solely trade-secret based |
| Specificity of tortious interference allegations | Not required to name specific clients under federal pleading | Must identify specific lost customers | Naming clients not required; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for federal court—"plausibility" requirement)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (heightened plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Lawlor v. North American Corp. of Illinois, 983 N.E.2d 414 (Ill. 2012) (elements for breach of fiduciary duty claim)
- Hecny Transportation, Inc. v. Chu, 403 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2005) (scope of ITSA preemption for state law torts)
- Cook v. Winfrey, 141 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 1998) (no requirement to plead specific third parties in business expectancy claims)