Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—D. Or.: Jury must decide Columbia Sportswear’s trade secrets suit against former employees, (Jun 2, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Summary judgment inappropriate on Columbia’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets as there is a dispute of fact as to whether Columbia has been damaged by the defendants’ misappropriation.

No party is entitled to summary judgment on Columbia Sportswear Company’s trade secrets claims against former employees, the federal district court in Portland, Oregon, has held. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on Columbia’s third claim for relief for conversion and also granted Columbia partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claims (Columbia Sportswear Co. v. Ferreira, No. 3:23-cv-00594-AB (D. Or. May 28, 2025)).

Background. Columbia Sportswear Co. (Columbia) filed suit against two former employees, William Ferreira (Ferreira) and Dean Rurak (Rurak) (collectively, defendants) in the district court for alleged theft of trade secrets. The two former employees resigned on the same day and joined Huk Gear, the competitor fishing apparel brand owned by Marolina Outdoor, Inc. Columbia brought five claims for relief in this case: (1) misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1836; (2) misappropriation of trade secrets under Oregon’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA), Or. Rev. Stat. § (ORS) 646.461; (3) conversion; (4) breach of contract; and (5) breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty. The fifth claim was brought solely against Rurak. Columbia and the defendants moved for summary judgment.

Trade secret misappropriation. Columbia brought claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under both the DTSA and OUTSA. However, the district court found that no party is entitled to summary judgment on Columbia’s trade secrets claims. The district court found that Columbia failed to demonstrate that as a matter of law that the defendants misappropriated its trade secrets. Similarly, the defendants failed to demonstrate that Columbia’s claims fail as a matter of law on any of the challenged elements of Columbia’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. Accordingly, the district court denied all parties’ motions for summary judgment on Columbia’s claims under the DTSA and OUTSA.

Conversion. Rurak moved for summary judgment on Columbia’s claim for conversion, arguing that it is superseded by the OUTSA and failed because there is no evidence that Rurak modified or manipulated the alleged confidential information. The district court agreed with Rurak that Columbia’s conversion claim was superseded by the OUTSA and dismissed Columbia’s third claim for relief.

Breach of contract. Columbia and the defendants both moved for summary judgment on Columbia’s claim for breach of contract. To establish a breach of contract claim under Oregon law, the plaintiff “must allege the existence of a contract, its relevant terms, plaintiff’s full performance and lack of breach, and defendant’s breach resulting in damage to plaintiff.” The district court noted that there is no dispute of fact that: (1) Ferreira breached ¶ 5 and ¶ 15 of the 2016 Proprietary Information and Noncompetition Agreement (2016 PINA); (2) Rurak breached the nonsolicitation provisions in ¶ 6 of the 2020 Proprietary Information and Noncompetition Agreement (2020 PINA) and § 1(i) of the Registered Stock Unit Award Agreements (RSUAA); and (3) Rurak breached ¶ 5 General Release Agreement (GRA) regarding the return of Columbia’s property. The district court found that the breach of the 2020 PINA is a breach of ¶ 2 of the GRA, triggering the damages provision in ¶ 6 of the GRA. Columbia, however, had not alleged that Rurak breached ¶ 2 of the GRA in its complaint. Accordingly, Columbia’s claim that it can recover damages for breach of the 2020 PINA through the GRA fails. Further, beyond seeking the return of the severance payments and the value of the stock given to Rurak under the RSUAA, Columbia did not expressly seek rescission or restitution in its complaint. Thus, the district court declined to find that Columbia is entitled to restitution damages for Columbia’s breach of contract claims.

Additionally, Columbia argued that it is entitled to recover costs associated with the loss of Ferreira and for costs related to recovering its confidential information. The district court found that this is sufficient at this juncture to survive summary judgment. However, the district court determined that summary judgment was inappropriate on the issue of damages and Rurak’s breach of ¶ 5 of the 2016 PINA.

Breach of fiduciary duty. To succeed on a claim for breach of a fiduciary duty, Columbia must show: (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) a breach of a fiduciary duty arising out of that relationship; and (3) damage to Columbia resulting from that breach. Columbia and Rurak raised two questions regarding Columbia’s breach of fiduciary duty claim: whether Rurak owes a fiduciary duty to Columbia and whether Rurak breached that duty. The district court found that issues of fact preclude summary judgment on either issue. Accordingly, Columbia’s and Rurak’s motions for summary judgment were denied as to Columbia’s fifth claim for relief.

Accordingly, the district court granted in part and denied in part Rurak’s motion for summary judgment, granted in part and denied in part Columbia’s partial motion for summary judgment, and denied Ferreira’s motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on Columbia’s third claim for relief for conversion. The district court also granted Columbia partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claims.

The Case is No. 3:23-cv-00594-AB.

Judge: Baggio, A.

Attorneys: Keith Ketterling (Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter P.C.) for Columbia Sportswear Co. Timothy Resch (Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP) for William Ferreira. Joshua Stump (Dunn Carney Allen Higgins & Tongue LLP) for Dean Rurak.

Companies: Columbia Sportswear Co.

Cases: TortClaims ContractClaims StateLawClaims OregonNews