Case: 24-10375 Document: 81-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
April 3, 2025
No. 24-10375
Lyle W. Cayce
____________
Clerk
DeWolff, Boberg & Associates Incorporated,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Justin Pethick; The Randall Powers Company,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CV-3649
______________________________
Before Smith, Clement, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Edith Brown Clement, Circuit Judge:
In 2018, the management consulting firm DeWolff, Boberg &
Associates, Inc. (DB&A) hired Justin Pethick as a regional vice president of
sales. In 2020, another consulting firm, The Randall Powers Company (the
Powers Co.), contacted Pethick about an employment opportunity. After
Pethick accepted and began working at the Powers Co., some prospective
DB&A clients hired the Powers Co. for consulting. DB&A now contends that
Pethick stole its trade secrets and used them to poach clients for the Powers
Co.
Case: 24-10375 Document: 81-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
No. 24-10375
DB&A retained a damages expert to calculate its alleged lost profits.
Pethick and the Powers Co. (collectively, Defendants) moved to exclude
DB&A’s expert under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
579 (1993), and they also moved for summary judgment. The district court
excluded DB&A’s expert and granted summary judgment to Defendants,
citing DB&A’s lack of evidence of damages.
Although we have concerns about the accuracy of the district court’s
Daubert analysis, we need not reach that issue because the record contains
alternative grounds for summary judgment independent of the Daubert
ruling. Accordingly, we AFFIRM on those alternative grounds.
I.
A.
DB&A is a global management consulting firm founded in 1987 and
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. DB&A provides consulting services to
various industries such as electronics, food, manufacturing, and defense
contractors. Randall Powers, a former DB&A employee, started his own
management consulting business, the Powers Co., in 2008. DB&A alleged
that the Powers Co. was a direct competitor.
DB&A’s business consists of three phases: (1) sales and marketing,
(2) analysis, and (3) operations/implementation. The sales-and-marketing
phase involves DB&A’s business development representatives finding
contacts at potential clients and getting them to meet with DB&A’s regional
vice presidents. The regional vice presidents are then tasked with selling the
potential client a two-week analysis, the second phase of DB&A’s business.
During the analysis, DB&A’s team observes the client’s internal processes
and identifies opportunities to improve productivity. This phase culminates
in a project proposal that, if accepted, leads to the
operations/implementations phase.
2
Case: 24-10375 Document: 81-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
No. 24-10375
DB&A contends that because the management consulting industry is
highly competitive in the pursuit of clients, it has “developed and
safeguarded sales and marketing processes and strategies that have given
DB&A a competitive edge in the market.” These processes and strategies
generate “information and data gained from decades of experience and
thousands of client contacts.” DB&A placed this information and data into a
database maintained by Salesforce (the Salesforce Database). DB&A also
maintained data on its Share Point database (the Share Point Database),
including a compilation of data on prospective clients from the defense
industry (the DOD List).
DB&A’s clients and prospective clients have accounts within the
Salesforce Database allegedly containing non-public information, including
call notes and meeting history, marketing strategies, and the contact
information of key executives and decisionmakers. DB&A contends that it
implemented measures to prevent the leakage of data from the Salesforce
Database, such as requiring employees to sign non-compete, non-solicitation,
and non-disclosure agreements. Access to the database is limited to certain
employees on an as-needed basis.
DB&A hired Pethick as a regional vice president in October 2018. In
this role, Pethick had access to the Salesforce Database. Pethick signed the
non-disclosure, non-compete, and non-solicitation agreements, and his
access to the Salesforce Database was password protected.
In April 2020, the Powers Co. reached out to Pethick while he was still
with DB&A to discuss an employment opportunity with the Powers Co.
Pethick was interested, and on April 24, the Powers Co. sent Pethick an offer
letter for the position of Vice President of Sales, which he accepted that day.
Despite accepting, Pethick continued working at DB&A. Pethick avers that
3
Case: 24-10375 Document: 81-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
No. 24-10375
he accepted employment with the Powers Co. as he was facing the threat of
a furlough at DB&A.
On May 15, 2020, DB&A discovered that an employee of the Powers
Co. had emailed a DB&A client at the direction of Pethick. DB&A executives
confronted Pethick, who informed them that he was resigning from DB&A
that day. DB&A immediately revoked Pethick’s access to the Salesforce
Database.
DB&A now argues that Pethick diverted three prospective clients
from DB&A to the Powers Co.: (1) Sechan Electronics (Sechan), (2) Arcosa
Wind Towers (Arcosa), and (3) Beyond Meat.
B.
On June 10, 2020, DB&A sued Pethick in Texas state court for breach
of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Pethick then removed the case to
the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, based on diversity
jurisdiction. DB&A later amended its complaint to add a claim for unjust
enrichment. At Pethick’s request, the case was transferred to the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division.
Months later, the district court allowed DB&A to amend its complaint
again to add the Powers Co. as a defendant and assert a variety of additional
claims, including misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants then moved
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the district
court granted in part and denied in part. The district court kept some of
DB&A’s claims, including the claim against Defendants for misappropriation
of trade secrets, the only claim that is relevant for purposes of this appeal.
DB&A retained Dr. Stuart B. Miller as an expert and tasked him with
calculating the profits it would have earned had Sechan, Arcosa, and Beyond
Meat hired DB&A instead of the Powers Co. for consulting services.
4
Case: 24-10375 Document: 81-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
No. 24-10375
Defendants then filed a Daubert motion to exclude Miller, and they also
moved for summary judgment. The district court granted both motions,
excluding Miller and dismissing all of DB&A’s remaining claims.
On appeal, DB&A only contests the exclusion of Miller and the
dismissal on summary judgment of its claim for misappropriation of trade
secrets. As to the misappropriation claim, the district court held that “this
claim necessarily fails as a matter of law” because “the court has already
excluded as inadmissible Dr. Miller’s testimony—the only evidence of
damages that [DB&A] relies upon to raise a fact issue.” However,
Defendants presented the district court with alternative arguments for
summary judgment that did not depend upon the court’s Daubert ruling. The
district court did not consider these arguments because the exclusion of
Miller was enough to justify summary judgment on its own. Because
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on these alternative grounds,
we focus on them and need not address the district court’s Daubert ruling.
II.
A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Nickell v. Beau
View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment
is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[W]here the non-movant bears the burden of proof
at trial, the movant may merely point to an absence of evidence,” which
“shift[s] to the non-movant the burden of demonstrating by competent
summary judgment proof that there is an issue of material fact warranting
trial.” Lindsey v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
16 F.3d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1994) (per
curiam). “The nonmovant cannot satisfy this burden merely by denying the
allegations in the opponent’s pleadings but can do so by tendering
5
Case: 24-10375 Document: 81-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
No. 24-10375
depositions, affidavits, and other competent evidence to buttress its claim.”
Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Expl. Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992).
III.
Defendants moved for summary judgment as to DB&A’s claim for
misappropriation of trade secrets. To prevail on a misappropriation claim
under Texas law, “a plaintiff must show that (1) a trade secret existed, (2) the
trade secret was acquired through a breach of a confidential relationship or
discovered by improper means, and (3) the defendant used the trade secret
without authorization from the plaintiff.” CQ, Inc. v. TXU Min. Co., 565 F.3d
268, 273 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gaia Techs. Inc. v. Recycled Prods. Corp.,
175
F.3d 365, 376 (5th Cir. 1999)).
Defendants’ first alternative argument for summary judgment is that
the information DB&A offered as its protected trade secrets fails to qualify
as such. DB&A counters that it identified trade secrets from both its
Salesforce and Share Point Databases. The trade-secret information from its
Salesforce Database allegedly included: (1) confidential contact information
for Arcosa, Sechan, and Beyond Meat; (2) “[d]emographic information,
historical information, notes from prior meetings, [and] notes regarding
specific needs or issues” from the three prospective clients; and
(3) “[d]ocuments and ESI containing confidential information related to
business opportunities” with the prospects. From the Share Point Database,
DB&A identified the DOD List and other documents. As evidence in support
of these trade secrets, DB&A cites to a large portion of data pulled from its
Salesforce Database, identified as “Exhibit X,” and to the DOD List.
Defendants are correct that DB&A’s labeling large swathes of
database information trade secrets is “vastly overbroad,” and that DB&A
failed to distinguish between the public information in its Salesforce Database
and the non-public information. More importantly, DB&A has not identified
6
Case: 24-10375 Document: 81-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
No. 24-10375
what specific information within its database constitutes a trade secret.
DB&A directs this court’s attention to Exhibit X, but not only is much of that
exhibit redacted (with no citation to a sealed, unredacted version for the court
to review), DB&A fails to distinguish between what information within
Exhibit X is a trade secret and what information is not. DB&A generally
describes “confidential contact information” or “notes from prior
meetings,” but nowhere is that information identified with specificity. And
“[w]e have no obligation to ‘sift through the record in search of evidence to
support a party’s opposition to summary judgment.’” Universal Truckload,
Inc. v. Dalton Logistics, Inc., 946 F.3d 689, 703 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting
Forsyth v. Barr,
19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994)).
The same problem arises with respect to the DOD List. From the face
of the document, it is not obvious that the DOD List contains confidential or
proprietary information. DB&A told the district court that the DOD List
contained confidential contacts at other companies, but the individuals listed
in the document are affiliated with DB&A. Without any additional
information, this court cannot say that the DOD List creates a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether DB&A has presented legitimate trade
secrets. Although the district court did not grant summary judgment on this
basis, “we can affirm the lower court’s decision on any grounds supported
by the record.” United States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 687 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995).
DB&A’s failure to identify a trade secret is one such ground.
Even assuming the Salesforce Database and DOD List contained
proper trade secrets, however, summary judgment would still be appropriate
for the second reason identified by Defendants: There is no evidence of
Pethick’s or the Powers Co.’s use or disclosure of any trade secret. The third
element of a misappropriation claim is the use of the trade secret without
authorization. Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. HAL, Inc., 500 F.3d 444, 449 (5th
7
Case: 24-10375 Document: 81-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/03/2025
No. 24-10375
Cir. 2007) “Use” here means commercial use, by which an entity seeks to
profit. Id. at 450.
Besides the allegedly suspicious timeline of the prospective clients
hiring the Powers Co. after Pethick left DB&A, the only evidence from
DB&A that Pethick actually used or disclosed trade secrets is an email from
Pethick requesting a copy of the DOD List before leaving for the Powers Co.
But as Defendants point out, when Pethick had his computer imaged by a
forensic specialist to delete any DB&A data, the DOD List was not even one
of the documents on the computer. DB&A has no evidence that Pethick
actually possessed the DOD List while at the Powers Co. More broadly,
DB&A has failed to show Pethick’s or the Power Co.’s use of any alleged
trade secret, and thus Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on that
basis as well.
…
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the summary-judgment dismissal of
DB&A’s misappropriation claim on the above alternative grounds.
8
