The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment against a trade secret plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff’s broad descriptions of confidential business information failed to identify its alleged trade secrets with sufficient specificity. Wilbur-Ellis Company v. Gompert, et al., Case Nos. 25-1577; -1682 (8th Cir. July 7, 2026) (Shepard, Erickson, Grasz, JJ.)
Wilbur-Ellis, an international marketer and distributor of agricultural products, specialty chemicals, and ingredients, sued four former employees after they left to join competitor J.R. Simplot Company, alleging breach of the duty of loyalty, trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act (NTSA), and tortious interference with business relationships. During discovery, the district court denied Wilbur-Ellis’s requests to compel discovery from both Simplot and the former employees, concluding that Wilbur-Ellis had not identified its alleged trade secrets with sufficient specificity to justify the requested discovery. After denying Wilbur-Ellis’s request to delay summary judgment pending additional discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the former employees on the trade secret and tortious interference claims and on most of the duty-of-loyalty claims. Wilbur-Ellis appealed.
Discovery orders affirmed
Wilbur-Ellis argued that the district court improperly prevented it from obtaining discovery from Simplot by requiring it to identify its alleged trade secrets with greater specificity before permitting third-party discovery.
The Eighth Circuit disagreed, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilbur-Ellis’s motion to compel. The Eighth Circuit noted that the district court had identified several concerns, including that Wilbur-Ellis’s trade secret disclosure was extremely broad, appeared to treat nearly everything the former employees encountered as a trade secret, and raised concerns that the requested third-party discovery would amount to a fishing expedition. The Court emphasized that Wilbur-Ellis did not dispute those findings on appeal or that it had sought third-party discovery before exhausting discovery from the former employees.
Trade secret claims fail for lack of specificity and evidence
Wilbur-Ellis also argued that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on its DTSA and NTSA claims. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, concluding that Wilbur-Ellis failed to present sufficient evidence that it possessed protectable trade secrets or that the defendants misappropriated them. The Court explained that Wilbur-Ellis relied on broad descriptions of categories of information – such as customer information, financial information, and business strategy – without identifying the specific trade secrets allegedly taken, who misappropriated them, or how they were misappropriated. The Court further found that, although Wilbur-Ellis identified its password-protected SeedWare database as confidential, it failed to produce evidence that the defendants improperly acquired, disclosed, or used any information contained in the database. Because Wilbur-Ellis failed to connect its allegations to specific trade secrets or admissible evidence of misappropriation, the Court found summary judgment was appropriate.
Duty of loyalty claims
Wilbur-Ellis next argued that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on its breach of the duty of loyalty claims. The Eighth Circuit disagreed, finding that Wilbur-Ellis failed to present admissible evidence that the former employees engaged in conduct prohibited under Nebraska law. The Court explained that employees are generally free to prepare to compete with their employer, including accepting employment with a competitor, absent evidence that they misappropriated trade secrets, solicited customers or employees while still employed, or otherwise substantially hindered the employer’s business. The Court affirmed summary judgment on the duty of loyalty claims, finding that Wilbur-Ellis relied primarily on speculation regarding the employees’ coordinated resignations, alleged solicitation of coworkers and customers, and resetting of company devices, rather than specific, admissible evidence demonstrating disloyal conduct or resulting harm.
Tortious interference claim
Wilbur-Ellis also challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment on its tortious interference claim. The district court found that Wilbur-Ellis relied primarily on unsupported allegations and hearsay, rather than admissible evidence showing that any specific defendant committed an act of interference or that any such conduct caused Wilbur-Ellis’s alleged damages. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Wilbur-Ellis failed to present evidence that the former employees intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with their business relationships.
