Syngenta Seeds, LLC v. Warner

Background

Syngenta alleged that former employees Todd Warner and Joshua Sleper took or disclosed Syngenta’s confidential information and trade secrets to Farmer’s Business Network (FBN), a competitor. Syngenta asserted federal and North Carolina trade-secret claims, breach-of-contract claims against Warner and Sleper, a tortious-interference claim against Warner, and a civil-conspiracy claim based on the alleged trade-secret violations.

The case involved cross-motions for summary judgment. Defendants jointly sought summary judgment, Warner separately sought summary judgment, and Syngenta sought partial summary judgment against Warner and Sleper. The parties also filed motions concerning expert testimony and declarations.

Trade-secret claims

The court held that Syngenta had not presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the existence and misappropriation of a trade secret. Syngenta’s court-ordered identification of its alleged trade secrets described the general types of information at issue, but the identification itself was not evidence that the information qualified as a trade secret.

Syngenta primarily relied on testimony from its technical expert, Dr. J. Stephen Smith. The court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude that testimony. It found that Smith’s opinions about the BreedingPlanCosts document, the Pipeline Proposal, and Sleper’s seed list were speculative, insufficiently tied to the evidence, or based on an unsupported leap from general statements to specific Syngenta methods. The court also considered Syngenta’s other evidence—including employee testimony, Warner’s deposition, forensic evidence, and the alleged retention of documents—and found that none created a genuine dispute about whether the information was a trade secret or had been misappropriated.

The court therefore entered summary judgment against Syngenta’s federal and North Carolina trade-secret-misappropriation claims. Because the conspiracy claim depended entirely on those trade-secret claims, the court also ruled that the conspiracy claim could not proceed. The order left no claims remaining against FBN.

Contract claims against Warner

Warner’s employment agreement included non-compete, nondisclosure, and return-of-property provisions. It also contained a provision requiring the return of company materials upon termination.

Warner’s summary-judgment motion was granted in part and denied in part. It was granted as to the trade-secret-misappropriation claims and the related conspiracy claim, but denied in all other respects. The court denied summary judgment on Syngenta’s non-compete and tortious-interference claims because Warner did not address those claims in his opening brief. It also denied summary judgment on the nondisclosure claim, finding that a reasonable jury could determine that Warner used Syngenta information in violation of the agreement.

The court granted Syngenta summary judgment on liability for Warner’s breach of the return-of-property provision. Warner retained six external hard drives containing Syngenta documents after his employment ended and did not return them until nearly two months later. The court rejected Warner’s arguments that his lack of awareness, Syngenta’s exit procedures, or the documents’ lack of confidentiality excused the breach. Because the record did not establish Syngenta’s damages from this breach, damages remained for the jury.

Contract claim against Sleper

Syngenta’s motion for partial summary judgment against Sleper was granted. Sleper admitted that he permanently deleted documents from a personal external drive, including Syngenta documents. The court held that the return-of-property provision covered documents that pertained to Syngenta or were received or used in connection with employment, not only confidential information. The court therefore found Sleper liable under that provision, leaving damages for trial.

Evidentiary motions and remaining rulings

The court denied Syngenta’s motion to exclude Defendants’ technical expert, Dr. Shawn Kaeppler, and denied the motions concerning forensic experts Jerry Bui and Robert Meekins. It denied Defendants’ motion to exclude damages expert Donald Gorowsky, allowing him to testify about contract damages. It denied as moot Syngenta’s motion concerning FBN damages expert John Bone because the trade-secret claims were resolved. It granted Defendants’ motion to strike Shreyartha Mukherjee’s declaration because Syngenta had not properly disclosed the information during discovery. The court denied as moot the motion concerning Dominic Tucker’s declaration because the trade-secret claims no longer remained for trial.

Order

Judge Tostrud ordered the following principal dispositions: Syngenta’s partial-summary-judgment motion was granted; Warner’s summary-judgment motion was granted in part and denied in part; Defendants’ joint summary-judgment motion was granted; Dr. Smith’s testimony was excluded; the motion to strike the declarations was granted in part and denied in part; and the remaining claims against Warner and Sleper proceeded toward trial. The remaining issues included Warner’s contract and tortious-interference claims, Sleper’s breach-of-contract claim, and damages under the return-of-property provisions.