UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 22, 2025

Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ DOUBLE EAGLE ALLOYS, INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 24-5089 MICHAEL HOOPER; ACE ALLOYS, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 4:19-CV-00243-JDR-CDL) _________________________________ Jason S. Taylor (Hayley N. Stephens and Kayla Finnegan, with him on the briefs) of Conner & Winters, LLP, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Ryan A. Ray (David R. Ross, with him on the brief) of Norman Wohlgemuth, LLP, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, SEYMOUR, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. _________________________________

Double Eagle Alloys, Inc. appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Ace Alloys, LLC and Michael Hooper on all claims. This litigation arises from Michael Hooper’s possession of digital files containing Appellate Case: 24-5089 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2025 Page: 2

Double Eagle’s business information. After a decade-long career at Double Eagle, Hooper jumped ship for competitor Ace Alloys. He also took 2,660 files downloaded from his Double Eagle computer with him. Double Eagle later discovered the download and sued both Hooper and Ace Alloys, alleging trade- secret violations, misappropriation of confidential business information, and civil conspiracy. After the parties conducted discovery, they cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Hooper and Ace Alloys on all claims.

On appeal, Double Eagle challenges the district court’s rulings on three fronts. First, Double Eagle asserts that it had identified the alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity to maintain its trade-secret claims. Second, Double Eagle contends that its business information was confidential to sustain its misappropriation claim. And third, Double Eagle argues that the trade-secret and misappropriation claims qualify as underlying torts to support the civil- conspiracy claim. We disagree and so, exercising our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

BACKGROUND I. Factual Background 1

1 “In reciting the facts of this case, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, as is appropriate when reviewing a grant of summary judgment.” Deherrera v. Decker Truck Line, Inc., 820 F.3d 1147, 1151 n.1 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2 Appellate Case: 24-5089 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2025 Page: 3

A. Hooper’s Job Change

Double Eagle and Ace Alloys are specialty-metals distributors. They buy and resell alloys for companies in the oil-and-gas industry. 2 Double Eagle is the established player, while Ace Alloys is the industry upstart. Ace Alloys directly competes with Double Eagle. Michael Hooper is a former Double Eagle employee who now works for Ace Alloys. His conduct during that job transition is the subject of this litigation.

Hooper had worked as the Inside Sales Manager at Double Eagle for nearly five years before resigning and joining Ace Alloys. 3 When he left for Ace Alloys, he took his handwritten notes and 2,660 digital files, which he downloaded from his Double Eagle comput