MSIG Holdings v. Pye

Background

The plaintiffs, MSIG Holdings (U.S.A.), Inc. and Mitsui Sumitomo Marine Management (U.S.A.), Inc., described the action as a trade-secret misappropriation case. They alleged that defendant Richard Pye, a former member of MSIG’s ocean and inland marine insurance business, left MSIG with other employees and joined an ocean and inland marine insurance team at Arch Insurance Group, Inc., which MSIG identified as a competitor.

According to the plaintiffs’ letter, Pye and others accessed, printed, emailed, and removed electronic and physical MSIG materials shortly before their final workdays. The materials allegedly included customer and policy lists, policy renewal and expiration dates, broker information, policy limits and terms, strategic notes, strategic plans, operational methods, and technical processes. The plaintiffs alleged that the information had economic value because it could help a competitor target customers and compete for business.

Requested discovery

The plaintiffs asked for a pre-motion conference before seeking narrowly tailored expedited discovery. Expedited discovery is information gathering that occurs earlier than the ordinary discovery schedule. The proposed discovery would have sought information from Pye and nonparties Jeffrey Kaufmann, Mary Springer, Frank Cecere, and Arch Insurance Group, Inc.

The plaintiffs said they wanted to determine what confidential information had been removed and retained, where it was being kept, with whom it had been shared, and how it had been used. They argued that expedited discovery was needed to identify and limit ongoing misuse and to preserve evidence. They also argued that the requests were limited and would not unduly burden Pye or the nonparties.

Court’s action

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a pre-motion conference. It ordered that the conference be held remotely through Microsoft Teams on October 16, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. The parties were directed to provide a list of attending counsel and their contact information. The plaintiffs and the Clerk of Court were directed to mail the order to Pye.

This order did not grant or deny the proposed expedited discovery itself. It also did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ trade-secret allegations. The provided text does not state the outcome of the scheduled conference or any later motion for expedited discovery.