Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin grants defendant Deanna Freeman’s motion for summary judgment on Allstate Insurance Company’s claims for trade-secret misappropriation, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and replevin. The court concludes that Allstate failed to produce sufficient evidence that Freeman misappropriated protectable trade secrets, violated the non-solicitation provision, or used improper means to solicit customers. The court also grants Freeman’s Rule 11 sanctions motion in part, finding that Allstate’s claims other than the non-solicitation theory were baseless, and awards reasonable attorney fees attributable to the sanctionable conduct.
Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Decision date
January 7, 2026
Docket number
24-cv-479-jdp
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether Allstate presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that Freeman misappropriated trade secrets under Wisconsin's Uniform Trade Secrets Act or the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.
- Whether Freeman breached her confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement by retaining or using confidential information, soliciting Allstate customers, or selling insurance from an office within one mile of the Beaulieu Agency.
- Whether Allstate presented sufficient evidence that Freeman tortiously interfered with Allstate's customer contracts through improper means.
- Whether Allstate established that Freeman unlawfully detained tangible property subject to replevin.
- Whether Allstate's claims based on alleged retention and use of confidential information violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3), and what sanction was appropriate.
Holdings
- Allstate failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Freeman took or used information qualifying as a trade secret; summary judgment was therefore warranted on the state and federal trade-secret claims.
- Freeman was entitled to summary judgment on Allstate's confidentiality-based contract claim because the broad, unrestricted confidentiality provision was unenforceable as to information that did not qualify as a trade secret, and Allstate failed to show that Freeman took or used protected information.
- The court predicted that Wisconsin law requires an employee to initiate contact in order to violate a non-solicitation agreement like Allstate's. Allstate nevertheless failed to create a triable issue that Freeman initiated contact with former customers, and general Facebook advertising was not solicitation of particular customers under the agreement.
- Allstate failed to create a genuine dispute that Freeman sold insurance from an office within one mile of the Beaulieu Agency because evidence that the Schmick Agency had a nearby office did not show that Freeman sold insurance from that office.
- Allstate failed to establish a triable issue that Freeman used improper means to interfere with Allstate's customer contracts, because it did not show that she used retained confidential information to induce customers to switch policies.
- Allstate failed to establish a genuine dispute that Freeman unlawfully detained tangible property to which Allstate was entitled, so summary judgment was warranted on the replevin claim.
- Allstate violated Rule 11(b)(3) by pursuing claims based on the alleged taking and use of confidential information without a reasonable factual basis, but its non-solicitation claim was not sanctionable because it had an arguable legal and factual basis. The appropriate sanction was Freeman's reasonable attorney fees attributable to the sanctionable claims.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…