1. Trade Secret Disclosure Washington DC – Contractual Agreements and Initial Claims
In Washington, D.C., allegations of trade secret disclosure often arise from employment contracts containing non-compete or confidentiality clauses.
The client had worked for S Corporation, a health-supplement manufacturer and distributor headquartered in the DC metro area.
After resigning with a colleague to pursue a new business, both individuals relied on personal relationships formed during their prior employment.
When S Corporation discovered their operations, it alleged that the two had violated a non-compete agreement and engaged in trade secret disclosure.
However, D.C. contract disputes require proof that the information used was truly confidential.
The defense examined the non-compete and NDA documents to determine whether the employer had clearly identified protected information, whether the restrictions complied with D.C. public-policy limitations, and whether the alleged trade secrets were accessible to the general market.
Evaluating Whether Customer Lists Meet D.C. Trade Secret Standards
Washington, D.C. courts apply three major criteria drawn from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act:
S Corporation’s claim failed these tests. The customers had long-standing personal relationships with the client based on in-person visits, industry networking, and independent rapport—not on proprietary data extracted from confidential databases.
Since D.C. law does not treat general personal connections as trade secrets, the employer’s initial assertions were legally insufficient.
2. Trade Secret Disclosure Washington DC – Defense Investigation and Legal Analysis
The litigation team investigated the employer’s claims, reviewed business practices, and assessed whether statutory trade-secret elements were satisfied.
It emphasizes how D.C. law requires rigorous proof that the former employee actually used confidential information.
Under Washington, D.C. standards, even if information could theoretically be confidential, liability requires proof that the former employee used or disclosed it.
The defense demonstrated:
- The client did not download or extract internal files.
- No confidential spreadsheets, CRM data, or internal analytics were transferred.
- All new business occurred through personal outreach and prior relationship-building that pre-dated the new company’s formation.
By presenting this evidence, the team showed that the supposed trade secret disclosure had not actually occurred.
Determining Whether Reasonable Secrecy Measures Existed
Courts in D.C. look closely at whether the employer took concrete steps to protect the information.
Evidence revealed the following weaknesses in S Corporation’s internal processes:
- Customer lists were shared openly among multiple departments.
- No password restrictions or tracking mechanisms were in place.
- No access logs or classification systems labeled the information as confidential.
- Employees could freely export or print materials without managerial clearance.
Because D.C. law requires proactive secrecy measures, the employer failed to establish the foundation necessary for a valid trade-secret claim.
3. Trade Secret Disclosure Washington DC – Litigation Strategy and Court Response
The legal team reframed the narrative to emphasize lawful competitive conduct.
It highlights how D.C. courts typically approach non-compete and trade-secret disputes within the employment context.
Washington, D.C. maintains a strong public policy favoring employee mobility. With this principle in mind, the defense constructed a narrative based on legitimate competition:
This approach aligned with D.C.’s general disfavor of excessively restrictive covenants, making the employer’s claims appear punitive rather than protective.
Undermining the Employer’s Claim of Damages
To succeed in a trade-secret action, the plaintiff must prove both misappropriation and resulting harm.
The defense argued 1)The employer provided no evidence that sales declines were tied to the client’s activities.
2) Market shifts and competitor growth explained any revenue fluctuations.
3) The employer’s calculations relied on speculative assumptions rather than documented losses.
Ultimately, the court found the plaintiff’s damages theory unpersuasive.
4. Trade Secret Disclosure Washington DC – Outcome and Practical Implications
The court dismissed the employer’s claims in full after finding that the alleged customer list did not qualify as a protectable trade secret and that no trade secret disclosureoccurred.
The judge emphasized:
- The employer failed to demonstrate that the information was confidential.
- The defendants relied on personal connections, not misappropriated data.
- Competition based on experience and relationships is lawful in D.C.
This outcome allowed the clients to continue building their business without constraints.
Compliance Lessons for Employers and Employees
This dispute highlights key takeaways:
26 Nov, 2025
