Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—8th Cir.: Dismissal of agricultural supplier's trade secrets lawsuit against former employees affirmed on appeal, (Jul 9, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The district court properly managed discovery, and the employer failed to identify its alleged trade secrets with sufficient specificity or support its claims with admissible evidence.

A company specializing in agricultural products, services, and technology failed to revive trade secret, duty-of-loyalty, and tortious-interference claims against four former employees after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed discovery rulings and summary judgment largely in the employees' favor. The court held that the company, Wilbur-Ellis, never adequately identified its alleged trade secrets, failed to present sufficient admissible evidence supporting its substantive claims, and did not demonstrate that the district court abused its broad discretion in limiting discovery or denying additional time before ruling on summary judgment (Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Gompert, No. 25-1577 (8th Cir. Jul. 7, 2026)).

The dispute arose between Wilbur-Ellis and four former employees—Josh Gompert, Aaron Petersen, James Kunzman, and Chad Mueller. After resigning from Wilbur-Ellis in August 2021, the employees joined competitor J.R. Simplot Company. Wilbur-Ellis alleged that they misappropriated confidential business information, breached their duties of loyalty, and interfered with its customer relationships while orchestrating a coordinated departure to Simplot.

Wilbur-Ellis sued Gompert and Petersen shortly after they left the company and later amended its complaint to add Kunzman and Mueller. The complaint asserted claims for misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act (NTSA), breach of the duty of loyalty, and tortious interference with business relationships. During discovery, Wilbur-Ellis first sought to subpoena Simplot, prompting objections from the employees. After the magistrate judge denied that request and later rejected Wilbur-Ellis's motions to compel discovery, the district court denied Wilbur-Ellis's request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to delay summary judgment for additional discovery. It then granted summary judgment on nearly all claims, leaving only a narrow duty-of-loyalty claim based on two weeks of dual employment, which the parties later voluntarily dismissed. Both sides appealed.

Discovery rulings. The Eighth Circuit first upheld the district court's refusal to permit third-party discovery from Simplot. The magistrate judge concluded that Wilbur-Ellis's subpoena constituted a "fishing expedition" against a competitor because it failed to adequately identify the trade secrets allegedly misappropriated. Its disclosure broadly referenced categories such as customer information, pricing, rebate data, and business strategy rather than identifying specific trade secrets. The district court agreed that those generalized descriptions were too broad to justify third-party discovery and observed that a growing consensus of courts require trade secret plaintiffs to identify the alleged trade secrets with at least some degree of particularity before seeking expansive discovery from competitors. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court acted well within its discretion in affirming those rulings.

The court also rejected Wilbur-Ellis's reliance on Ahern Rentals, Inc. v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc., 59 F.4th 948 (8th Cir. 2023). It explained that Ahern addressed the pleading standard applicable to a motion to dismiss rather than appellate review of discovery rulings, which are reviewed only for gross abuse of discretion. Moreover, the district court did not establish a categorical rule requiring plaintiffs always to identify trade secrets before obtaining discovery. Instead, it reasonably required greater specificity under the facts presented, given Wilbur-Ellis's broad allegations and premature attempt to subpoena a third-party competitor.

The Eighth Circuit likewise affirmed the denial of Wilbur-Ellis's motion to compel discovery from the employees, finding that the company failed to comply with the magistrate judge's procedural requirement that parties first request a discovery conference before filing such motions. The court also upheld the denial of Wilbur-Ellis's Rule 56(d) request to postpone summary judgment, noting that discovery had long been closed, the request was untimely, and many of the claimed discovery deficiencies resulted from Wilbur-Ellis's own litigation decisions.

Trade secret claims. Affirming summary judgment on the DTSA and NTSA claims, the Eighth Circuit relied on MPAY Inc. v. Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc., 970 F.3d 1010, 1016 (8th Cir. 2020), which requires a plaintiff to prove the existence of a protectable trade secret and its misappropriation. The court also cited Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027, 1033 (8th Cir. 2020), which explains that a trade secret must derive independent economic value from not being generally known and must be subject to reasonable measures to maintain its secrecy. The court agreed with the district court that Wilbur-Ellis painted "with a broad brush," relying on generalized descriptions of customer information, financial information, pricing, and business strategy without identifying specific trade secrets, showing how they qualified for protection, or establishing how any defendant improperly acquired or used them.

The court likewise rejected Wilbur-Ellis's reliance on its password-protected SeedWare database. Even assuming that information stored in SeedWare qualified as a trade secret, Wilbur-Ellis produced no evidence that any employee improperly acquired, disclosed, or used information from the database. Allegations that employees reset company-issued devices before returning them or coordinated their departure to Simplot similarly failed because Wilbur-Ellis never connected those actions to the acquisition or misuse of any identifiable trade secret.

Duty of loyalty. The Eighth Circuit also affirmed summary judgment on virtually all duty-of-loyalty claims. Applying Nebraska law, the court relied on Dick v. Koski Professional Group, P.C., 950 N.W.2d 321, 366-67 (Neb. 2020), opinion modified on denial of reh'g, 953 N.W.2d 257 (Neb. 2021), which recognizes that employees may plan to compete with their employer while still employed, provided they do not misappropriate trade secrets, solicit customers or co-workers, or remove confidential information.

The court concluded that Wilbur-Ellis failed to present admissible evidence that the employees improperly solicited customers or co-workers, concealed misconduct, or otherwise engaged in actionable disloyalty. Instead, the evidence showed only that they prepared to join a competitor and resigned around the same time. The court also cited ATC Distribution Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc., 402 F.3d 700, 716 (6th Cir. 2005) in observing that employees generally may meet and plan to join a competing business without breaching their duty of loyalty absent evidence of an intent to injure the employer. The only remaining duty-of-loyalty claim, involving the employees' two weeks of dual employment while receiving compensation from both companies, had been voluntarily dismissed and therefore was not before the appellate court.

Tortious interference. Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment on Wilbur-Ellis's tortious interference claims. Applying Thompson v. Johnson, 910 N.W.2d 800, 806-07 (Neb. 2018), the court held that Wilbur-Ellis failed to identify any specific unjustified act by any individual defendant that interfered with its business relationships or caused its alleged losses. Instead, the company relied largely on speculation, hearsay, and unsupported conclusions. The court reiterated that unsupported, self-serving allegations cannot defeat summary judgment. It therefore affirmed the district court's discovery orders, denial of Rule 56(d) relief, and grant of summary judgment in the employees' favor.

The Case is No. 25-1577.

Judge: Shepherd, B.

Attorneys: Grant Daniel Goerke (Littler & Mendelson) for Wilbur-Ellis Co. Zachary B. Busey (Baker & Donelson) for Josh Gompert.

Companies: Wilbur-Ellis Co.

Cases: TortClaims EvidenceDiscovery Procedure ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews