Eighth Circuit Affirms That Inadequate Trade-Secret Identification Can Foreclose Discovery and Claims

At a Glance

• Federal appellate courts continue to take up the issue of the sufficiency of plaintiffs' trade-secret identification, confirming that the identification of trade secrets receives close scrutiny at various stages of litigation.
• Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately identify its trade secrets — relying on only broad categories rather than specific information — the Eighth Circuit: (1) upheld a discovery order denying the plaintiff's motion to compel third-party discovery from a competitor, and (2) affirmed summary judgment against the plaintiff's trade secret misappropriation claims under both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act.
• The decision reinforces that trade-secret identification is a requirement that can be enforced at multiple stages of litigation — from discovery through dispositive motions — and that failure to identify trade secrets with specificity can cascade into fatal consequences for the entire claim.

We recently shared insights into four notable decisions by the federal appellate courts related to the close scrutiny courts give to a plaintiff's identification of its trade secrets.

A July 7, 2026, decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit continued that trend. In Wilbur-Ellis Company v. Gompert, the Eighth Circuit addressed the critical requirement of trade-secret identification in misappropriation litigation. The appellate court affirmed both a discovery order denying Wilbur-Ellis's motion to compel third-party discovery and a subsequent summary judgment dismissing all of Wilbur-Ellis's trade secret claims — both grounded in the same deficiency: Wilbur-Ellis's persistent failure to identify its alleged trade secrets with any meaningful specificity.

Background

Wilbur-Ellis, an agricultural products, services, and technology company, sued four former employees after they resigned and joined competitor J.R. Simplot Company. Wilbur-Ellis brought claims for breach of the duty of loyalty, trade secret misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act (NTSA), and tortious interference with business relationships.

Early in discovery, and following a motion to compel third-party discovery, the magistrate judge ordered Wilbur-Ellis to disclose "with specificity, the trade secrets it alleges were misappropriated." Wilbur-Ellis produced a six-page document describing its trade secrets in broad terms such as "documents and information regarding Wilbur-Ellis's business and market strategy," "documents and information relating to Wilbur-Ellis's customers," and "nonpublic customer proposals, pricing and rebate data."

The magistrate judge found this disclosure inadequate and overbroad, expressing concern that Wilbur-Ellis was engaged in a nonparty "fishing expedition" during discovery. The magistrate judge denied the motion to compel, and the district court affirmed, noting a "growing consensus" of courts requiring specificity in trade-secret identification before discovery. The employees subsequently moved for summary judgment on all claims, and the district court granted judgment on Wilbur-Ellis's trade secret claims, finding that Wilbur-Ellis never adequately identified any trade secret.

Court's Analysis

Trade-Secret Identification Impact during Discovery

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Wilbur-Ellis to identify its trade secrets with specificity before permitting third-party discovery. The court did not adopt a categorical rule requiring specificity in all cases, but found it reasonable to require more specificity here given the breadth of the disclosure, concern that the request was a fishing expedition, and the premature request for third-party discovery.

Trade-Secret Identification at Summary Judgment

Reviewing the summary judgment order de novo, the Eighth Circuit concluded that Wilbur-Ellis "paint[ed] with a broad brush, never clearly and adequately identifying the 'trade secrets' at issue." The court noted that Wilbur-Ellis's "reliance on broad terms, general descriptions, and repeated, non-specific references . . . do[es] not suffice," and that because of the broad categories described, much of what Wilbur-Ellis labeled as trade secrets "appears to be public or unprotected."

Although Wilbur-Ellis argued that "customer information, including particular needs and characteristics about the customer, warrant trade secret protection," it never identified which specific documents related to customer information were misappropriated. The court similarly rejected Wilbur-Ellis's claims regarding employees who had "downloaded and accessed files" containing "highly sensitive information," because Wilbur-Ellis failed to specify, among other things, what files were taken. Indeed, the court highlighted that it would not be hard to imagine that most company documents would be related to "customers, financial information, or strategy."

Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court that Wilber-Ellis "never clearly and adequately identified the trade secrets at issue, let alone how they were used or misused," and therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the trade secret claims.

Key Takeaways

• The decision again underscores the importance of trade-secret identification.
• Although inadequate trade-secret identification may not be a complete bar to discovery, it may restrict or even prohibit discovery from proceeding altogether in certain cases.
• Inadequate identification of trade secrets can cascade into dispositive consequences.
• Plaintiffs should ensure that trade secrets are identified with specificity, avoiding broad terms, general descriptions, and nonspecific references.
• Defendants, in turn, should seek to force plaintiffs to adequately identify their trade secrets and should highlight for the court any potential failures to do so.