Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. v. Hooper.
No. 24-5089. 4/22/2025. N.D.Okla. Judge Phillips. Trade Secret Violations—Defend Trade Secrets Act—Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act—Misappropriation of Confidential Business Information—Civil Conspiracy—Underlying Tort.
April 22, 2025
For about a decade, Hooper worked for Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. (Double Eagle), a specialty metals distributor. He then went to work for Double Eagle’s competitor, Ace Alloys, LLC, taking his handwritten notes and 2,660 digital files, which he downloaded from his Double Eagle computer. The digital files contained Double Eagle’s sales information. When Double Eagle discovered the download, it sued Hooper and Ace Alloys, alleging trade secret violations under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 USC §§ 1836 et seq., and the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA); misappropriation of confidential business information; and civil conspiracy. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to Hooper and Ace Alloys on all claims.
On appeal, Double Eagle argued that the financial, technical, and business information in the downloaded files qualifies as trade secrets, which it identified with sufficient particularity to maintain its trade secret claims; and that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on the trade secret claims. It maintained that the downloaded files contained trade secrets on pump-shaft-quality (PSQ) specifications, pricing, and customer drawings. As relevant here, under the DTSA and OUTSA, a plaintiff has the burden of identifying the existence of trade secrets. For the PSQ specifications to qualify as trade secrets, Double Eagle had to show that the PSQ specifications were not “readily ascertainable” through proper means. Double Eagle cited its 718 and K500 specifications as trade secret examples. But the undisputed evidence shows that Double Eagle publicly posted certain aspects of the 718 PSQ specification on its website, including a nearly identical chemical composition; and its customers have similar 718 and K500 PSQ specifications. Further, Ace Alloys developed its own 718 and K500 specifications close to a year before Hooper left Double Eagle, and its specifications are nearly identical to Double Eagle’s specifications. Additionally, as a routine business practice, Double Eagle (and other distributors) provided material test reports with PSQ specifications for the ordered alloys to their customers, and Double Eagle did not maintain any confidentiality agreement for these material test reports. Double Eagle thus failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a triable issue on whether the PSQ specifications qualify as trade secrets. As to pricing, the district court correctly concluded that Double Eagle’s prices are not trade secrets because Double Eagle shares its prices with customers and does not prevent its customers from sharing those prices. Lastly, the customer drawings do not qualify as trade secrets because the customer drawings come from the customers; and Double Eagle cited no evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that Double Eagle owns the drawings. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the trade secret claims under the DTSA and OUTSA.
Double Eagle also contended that the district court erred by dismissing the misappropriation claim because a reasonable jury could find that the downloaded files were confidential and the district court did not allow Double Eagle to present all evidence in support of this claim. While trade secrets differ from confidential information, here the lack of secrecy to support the trade secret claims similarly defeats the misappropriation claim. Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) lets a court grant summary judgment on grounds not raised by a party after giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, which the district court did here.
Lastly, Double Eagle argued that if the dismissal of any other claim were reversed, dismissal of the civil conspiracy claim must also be reversed. Under Oklahoma law, a civil conspiracy claim requires an underlying tort, so because the district court properly dismissed all other claims, it also properly dismissed the civil-conspiracy claim.
The judgment was affirmed.