Insurance Broker List Not Protected as Trade Secret After Employee’s Unrestricted Sharing

On February 19, 2015, while at the company, Snyder exported a nationwide customer list of more than 40,000 insurance broker names from the company’s client-relationship-management software into an Excel file (the Insurance Company Broker List). On the same day he exported the spreadsheet, Snyder emailed it from his work email to his personal Hotmail account; the company later terminated Snyder in August 2016.

In August 2018, Snyder joined Beam Technologies, Inc. as Regional Director of Broker Success. Snyder and Beam signed a Relocation Agreement for Snyder to move from Arizona to Colorado. Snyder alleged that Beam promised to pay him “off the books” for spreadsheets to induce him to work for Beam and to disclose the Insurance Company Broker List.

Using the Insurance Company Broker List as a template, Snyder created three state-specific Excel spreadsheets for Texas, Utah, and Colorado. Synder intended each state list to go only to employees targeting that state, but he inadvertently included the entire Insurance Company Broker List as a separate tab in each spreadsheet. He then emailed these files to three groups of Beam employees, totaling 10 recipients.

After realizing the national list had been sent, Snyder did not attempt to claw the files back, did not notify recipients of a mistake, and did not add confidentiality labels. He told Beam’s CEO that he had purposefully shared the national Insurance Company Broker List and never told Beam the inclusion was accidental. Beam terminated Snyder in November 2018.

Case Information

Snyder v. Beam Techs., Inc., 147 F.4th 1246 (10th Cir. 2025)

Plaintiff: John Snyder

Defendant: Beam Technologies, Inc.

Judge: Judges Scott M. Matheson, Jr.; Robert E. Bacharach; Richard E. N. Federico

Claims and Motion to Dismiss

Snyder sued Beam for trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), as well as several state law claims targeting Beam’s actions leading up to and during his employment. Beam moved for summary judgment on his DTSA and CUTSA claims arguing the following.

1. Snyder failed to present sufficient evidence that he owned the Insurance Company Broker List.
2. Snyder failed to present sufficient evidence that he took reasonable measures or efforts to safeguard the Insurance Company Broker List.
3. Beam did not misappropriate the Insurance Company Broker List from Snyder; rather, Snyder voluntarily emailed it to several Beam employees.

The district court granted that motion based on Beam’s first argument.

Outcome

The 10th Circuit affirmed the summary judgment but on different grounds. As to the ownership issue, the court skirted it because who can bring a trade secrets lawsuit is a major distinction between the DTSA and the CUTSA. The DTSA allows an “owner” to bring a claim, whereas the CUTSA allows a “complainant” to bring one. “Complainant” is not defined in the statute. The district court’s order appeared to contradict 10th Circuit case law that permits those who possess the trade secret to bring a CUTSA claim.

Though it declined to address the ownership issue, the 10th Circuit affirmed the dismissal on Beam’s second argument. The evidence showed that Snyder did not take reasonable measures to maintain secrecy:

• Snyder did not mark any spreadsheet as confidential or as a trade secret.
• Snyder did not password-protect the documents, did not limit access within Beam, did not require confidentiality agreements, and did not notify recipients of any restrictions.
• Snyder saved copies on his personal computer, a USB drive, and his password-protected Beam laptop, but the documents themselves were not protected.

The court further found that Snyder openly shared the lists with multiple employees without any restrictions or notice, failed to protect the documents, and did not attempt to mitigate the disclosure after the fact. The court concluded that these actions were insufficient to meet the standard of reasonable efforts required to maintain trade secret protection under both federal and Colorado law. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court on this basis.