Wisconsin High Court Affirms High Summary Judgment Bar to Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims

by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Contact

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant accused of conspiring to misappropriate its competitor’s trade secrets. By a 4-3 decision in North Highland Inc. v. Jefferson Machine & Tool Inc., 2017 WI 75 (July 6, 2017), the Court found that plaintiff North Highland, Inc. (“North Highland”) had failed to present sufficient evidence of misappropriation or conspiracy to proceed beyond the summary judgment stage, prompting a notably sharp exchange with dissenting Chief Justice Patience D. Roggensack and a second dissent by two other justices.

Highland is a Wisconsin-based manufacturer of industrial products. One of the companies it distributed its products to was Bay Plastics, Inc., owned by Frederick Wells. Prior to 2011, Wells decided to form a separate company to manufacture the products which Bay Plastics sold, including some of the products which it purchased from North Highland. Wells formed Jefferson Machine & Tool Inc. (“Jefferson Machine”) along with Dwain Trewyn—Wells owned 75% of Jefferson Machine and Trewyn owned the remaining 25%. At the time of Jefferson Machine’s formation, Trewyn was employed by North Highland in sales. Trewyn did not have a non-competition agreement with North Highland, but also did not inform North Highland that he would also be working at Jefferson Machine.

When Tyson Foods issued a request for quotes to several vendors for 3,000 trolleys to be used in one of its plants, North Highland was on the list of approved bidders receiving the request while Jefferson Machine was not. The employee responsible for preparing North Highland’s bid was Trewyn. Less than three weeks after the request was issued, Trewyn obtained approval from Tyson to submit a bid on behalf of Jefferson Machine as well, even though it had not been on the approved bidder list. Trewyn was also responsible, along with Wells, for preparing Jefferson Machine’s bid. Trewyn did not disclose to North Highland that he was preparing bids on behalf of both North Highland and Jefferson Machine for the same Tyson Foods request. Despite not having initially been an approved bidder, Jefferson Machine submitted a lower bid than North Highland and was awarded the Tyson Foods contract. After North Highland discovered the circumstances behind its lost bid, it terminated Trewyn and threatened to seek injunctive relief against Jefferson Machine, which resulted in Tyson Foods cancelling the contract and awarding it to neither company.

North Highland filed suit against Trewyn, Bay Plastics, Wells, and Jefferson Machine for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, tortious interference, and misappropriation of trade secrets under Wisconsin state law. While it settled its claims against Trewyn and its claims against Bay Plastics were dismissed, North Highland proceeded on its claims against Wells as an individual for civil conspiracy to breach Trewyn’s fiduciary duties to North Highland, as well as its claim that Wells had misappropriated North Highland’s trade secrets—in this, its confidential bid information on the Tyson Foods project—in violation of the Wisconsin Trade Secrets Act.. Wis. Stat. §  134.90. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants on those counts, finding that North Highland failed to present evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, although its unpublished opinion focused on the issue of whether North Highland’s bid constituted a trade secret under Wisconsin law, finding that it did not. North Highland, Inc. v. Jefferson Mach. & Tool. Inc., No. 2015AP643, ¶ 25, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2016).

In affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision, the majority first noted that it was doing so on different grounds, and specifically without reaching the question of whether or not a bid would qualify as a trade secret under the circumstances presented. 2017 WI 75, ¶ 4, n. 4. Instead, the majority focused on whether or not North Highland had presented sufficient evidence of its claims to survive a motion for summary judgment. In finding that North Highland had not done so, the Court placed considerable emphasis on the fact that both defendants Trewyn and Wells had testified that, even though Wells was aware of Trewyn’s involvement in setting the bid amounts for both North Highland and Jefferson Machine, Trewyn had not disclosed the amount of North Highland’s bid to Wells. Id. at ¶¶ 11-13. While acknowledging the considerable circumstantial evidence suggesting collusion between Trewyn and Wells in formulating Jefferson Machine’s bid, the majority found that such evidence was insufficient in light of “unrebutted deposition testimony” from Wells and Trewyn:

North Highland contends that the evidence submitted to the circuit court on summary judgment is sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that Wells conspired with Trewyn….Based on this evidence of Wells and Trewyn’s working relationship at Jefferson Machine, an inference may be drawn that Trewyn shared his knowledge of the Tyson bid with Wells. However, the unrebutted deposition testimony supports the opposite conclusion. There is no evidence of the formation and operation of a conspiracy….As set forth more fully above, Trewyn similarly testified that Wells had no knowledge Trewyn was bidding on the Tyson project for North Highland. He stated that he did not discuss his work on the Tyson project with Wells and that he did not tell Wells that he submitted a bid for North Highland.

Id. at ¶¶ 30-32.

Because North Highland had not submitted any evidence in opposition to summary judgment rebutting that deposition testimony, the majority found that it had failed to meet its burden of showing that there was some basis for a jury to find that there was either a conspiracy or that Wells had misappropriated North Highland’s confidential information.

Chief Justice Roggensack dissented from the majority’s decision in strong terms, finding that the circumstances of the bidding process on their own created a sufficient factual question that should have been submitted to the jury while nothing that “[e]vidence of misappropriation of trade secret information does not have to be direct evidence. Circumstance evidence must also be considered…” Id. at ¶  109. The dissent’s claims of what that circumstantial evidence showed, however, prompted a rebuke from the majority accusing the dissent of “misinform[ing]” those who read it, “cherry-pick[ing]” certain parts of the record, and “creat[ing] its own facts.” Id. at ¶ 42, n. 12. A separate dissent by Justice Bradley agreed that the case should have been submitted to the jury, while discussing at length the conclusion that a bid could constitute a trade secret under Wisconsin state law.

Conclusions and Take Aways

On their face, the undisputed facts underlying the majority’s decision would appear to create more than enough circumstantial evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion and submit North Highland’s claims of misappropriation to a jury. The same individual (Trewyn) created the bids submitted by two bidders for the same job—his employer and the side company which he did not tell his employer about. Trewyn’s and Wells’ testimony that the former did not tell the latter about the amount of North Highland’s bid, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s emphasis on that testimony as “unrebutted”—seems to be an instance of a defendant testifying “I did not do what I am accused of doing,” and a court finding that self-serving testimony to be dispositive in favor of the defendant. Direct evidence of misappropriation of trade secrets, wherein a defendant flatly admits to misappropriation or where documentary evidence exists of same, is understandably rare.

Regardless, parties seeking to prove misappropriation claims under Wisconsin law are now on notice as to the importance of finding some direct evidence of misappropriation in defeating a motion for summary judgment. Expedited discovery—especially the imaging of electronic devices in cases where parties may delete evidence of the sharing of trade secrets among defendants—will continue to be of particular importance in misappropriation actions. While the Court’s decision does not offer binding precedent on the issue of whether or not a bid can constitute a trade secret under Wisconsin state law, three dissenting justices found that such information could qualify as a trade secret while the majority refused to address the issue either way.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Seyfarth Shaw LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Contact
more
less

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.