IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—M.D. Fla.: Dismissal granted in part in trade secret dispute concerning drilling service, (Mar 25, 2026)

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

A drilling company’s defamation claim failed because it asserted both vicarious and direct theories of liability in the same count.

A drilling company sufficiently pleaded its breach of fiduciary duty claim against a former employee and the misappropriation of trade secrets against the competitor but not defamation, the federal district court in Tampa, Florida, has ruled. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted for the dismissal of the drilling company’s defamation claim on the basis that the defamation count asserted both vicarious and direct theories of liability in the same count (Preferred Drilling Solutions, Inc. v. Bonacum, No. 8:25-cv-00806-MSS-CPT (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2026)).

Background. Preferred Drilling Solutions, Inc. (PDS) provided highly specialized drilling services utilizing multimillion-dollar specialty drills throughout the State of Florida and the south-eastern United States. According to PDS, Kevin Bonacum was in charge of bidding on projects for PDS. He was employed by PDS as its Director of Safety and Business Development from December 26, 2016 through March 14, 2024 and as its Vice President of Operations from March 15, 2024 through March 28, 2025. PDS alleged that a material term of the Employment Agreement was that Bonacum would be employed by PDS on a full time basis as Vice President of Operations for three years during which time he would perform such duties as the officers of the company may direct, devote his business activity exclusively to PDS, and perform and discharge well and faithfully all duties associated with his services.

PDS alleged in Counts I and V that Bonacum and CAA (collectively, defendants) were liable for the unauthorized use of the Customer List and associated confidential customer order history. PDS also alleged in Count VI that the defendants are liable for Bonacum’s defamatory statements made to PDS employees and customers. Further, the PDS alleged in Count III that Bonacum was liable for a breach of fiduciary duty. Bonacum moved to dismiss Counts I, III, and V of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule (12)(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CAA moved to dismiss Counts I, V, and VI of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and (b)(1).

Breach of fiduciary duty. PDS alleged that Bonacum as a Vice President of PDS, owed a fiduciary duty of loyalty to PDS, and that he breached his duty by soliciting PDS customers and employees on behalf of CAA while still employed by PDS; forwarding requests for quotes from PDS customers to his personal email account and not submitting quotes to the customers on behalf of PDS, and misrepresenting to PDS employees and customers that PDS was “in a lot of trouble and probably won’t be around much longer” so that they would leave PDS and join CAA.

The district court noted that the fiduciary duty count was premised on the allegation that Bonacum “solicited PDS customers and employees on behalf of CAA while still employed by PDS,” and independent facts incorporated into the breach of fiduciary duty count support this claim. Accordingly, the single publication rule did not require dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty insofar as it is based on a theory that that Bonacum breached his duty of loyalty by redirecting PDS’s employees and customers to CAA by misrepresenting to PDS employees and customers “that PDS was in a lot of trouble and probably won’t be around much longer.”

Defamation. PDS premised its defamation claim on its allegation that Bonacum published a false statement, “that PDS was ‘in a lot of trouble and probably won’t be around much longer,” to PDS’s customers and employees as part of his efforts with CAA to persuade PDS’s customers and employees to leave PDS and do business with CAA. CAA argued that PDS’s defamation claim failed as to CAA because PDS improperly lumped CAA into a defamation claim concerning alleged statements made by Bonacum, not statements made by CAA. In its response to CAA’s motion to dismiss, PDS did not dispute CAA’s assertion that PDS’s defamation claim against CAA was based on a vicarious liability theory. The district court noted that while the plaintiff can travel under a theory of direct liability, vicarious liability, or both for a given claim, they are not the same cause of action. Rather, they are distinct theories of liability, and to assert both in one count is impermissible shotgun pleading. Accordingly, the district court determined that the Amended Complaint must be dismissed because it improperly asserts both vicarious and direct theories of liability in the same count.

Misappropriation of trade secrets. The defendants’ contended that the claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under federal law and Florida law were pleaded inadequately. CAA also contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction over any remaining claims because the DTSA cause of action is the only cause of action in the Amended Complaint that arises under federal law. The district court noted that the Amended Complaint identified PDS’s alleged trade secrets as “PDS’s customer list and associated confidential customer order history.” The district court noted that trade secrets derive economic value from not being ascertainable by competitors and the general public who could use this information to poach customers and adopt PDS’s business strategies.

PDS alleged that it took reasonable steps to protect the secrecy of the alleged trade secrets by, among other things, “maintaining the Trade Secrets on a password protected server, and providing confidential password access to only ten of PDS’s 88 employees on a need to know basis.” The defendants contended in their motions to dismiss that PDS should have employed additional measures to protect the privacy of the Trade Secrets. The district court found that the resolution of this disputed matter is more properly resolved at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings, after the completion of discovery.

Additionally, the Amended Complaint adequately alleged that Bonacum and CAA unlawfully used and disclosed the Trade Secrets. At this stage of the proceedings the allegations sufficiently put the defendants on notice of PDS’s theory that Bonacum, on behalf of CAA, relied on the Trade Secrets to convert PDS customers into CAA customers. The district court concluded that whether Bonacum actually used or disclosed the Trade Secrets to CAA, and whether CAA knew or had reason to know that that the Trade Secrets were derived from or through a person who owed a duty to PDS to maintain the secrecy of the Trade Secrets, are issues more properly resolved at the summary judgment stage.

PDS and the defendants did not dispute that the federal law and Florida law misappropriation claims may be analyzed together. CAA contended that the DTSA claim is due to be dismissed because PDS failed to plead any relevant facts claiming that the alleged trade secrets will be used in interstate or foreign commerce. Further, CAA contended that the FUTSA claim is preempted by the DTSA claim. However, “except as provided in section 1833(b),” the DTSA “shall not be construed to preempt or displace any other remedies, whether civil or criminal, provided by... State... law for the misappropriation of a trade secret....” Accordingly, the FUTSA claim could not be dismissed as preempted. Thus, motion to dismiss the claims for misappropriation of trade secrets was denied.

Motions for leave. The defendants’ Motions for Leave request the filing of supplemental pleadings concerning PDS’s October 20 and 23 statements. The October 20 and 23 statements were published months after the court’s August 22, 2025 deadline for motions to add parties or to amend pleadings. The district court noted that the proposed supplemental pleadings were directed at alleged tortious conduct that occurred after the deadline elapsed. Thus, the defendants cannot be faulted for not moving for leave to file supplemental pleadings before the deadline elapsed. Bonacum’s Motion for Leave was filed on November 12, 2025, and CAA’s Motion for Leave was filed on November 17, 2025. The district court found no undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or undue prejudice associated with the filing of the Motions for Leave. The district court found that the addition of third party defendants and new factual issues stemming from the October 20 and 23 statements did not appear to jeopardize this case’s progression. The district court was confident that an appropriate extension of remaining pretrial deadlines could accommodate the addition of these new parties and issues without meaningfully risking a delay which might materially reduce the availability of evidence and witnesses’ memories.

Accordingly, Bonacum’s motion to dismiss was denied, and CAA’s motion to dismiss was granted for the defamation claim but otherwise denied. However, the defendants’ Motions for Leave were granted.

The Case is No. 8:25-cv-00806-MSS-CPT.

Judge: Scriven, M.

Attorneys: George Donovan Conwell, Jr. (Conwell Business Law, PA) for Preferred Drilling Solutions, Inc. Amy Lea Drushal (Trenam Kemker Scharf Barkin Frye O'Neill & Mullis PA) for Kevin J. Bonacum.

Companies: Preferred Drilling Solutions, Inc.

Cases: TradeSecrets TechnologyInternet FloridaNews