Fifth Circuit Emphasizes Need for Proof of Trade Secrets’ Economic Value and Effort Required to Create Compilation

The plaintiff, Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana (A+PEL), is a nonprofit organization that provides educator support services, including teacher certification trainings approved by the Louisiana Department of Education. A+PEL asserted it maintained a Client List of customer school districts with points-of-contact and a Member Database containing member information. 

Miranda Britt began working at A+PEL in 2014. In March 2015, while employed by A+PEL, Britt co-founded EDU20/20, a competing educational support organization. For several years during her A+PEL employment, Britt gave presentations on behalf of EDU20/20 at various school districts and conferences, sometimes using A+PEL’s logo in her slides and introducing herself with A+PEL credentials while representing EDU20/20. In September 2021, Britt resigned from her full-time position with A+PEL. Approximately one week before giving notice of her resignation, Britt accessed A+PEL’s Member Database and later shared A+PEL’s Mentor Teacher training materials with a school district account. Britt continued working with A+PEL part time until A+PEL terminated Britt’s employment in March 2022.

A+PEL sued Britt, EDU/20/20’s other co-founder, and EDU20/200 (collectively, the Defendants) in the Western District of Louisiana, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA and LUTSA, among other claims. 

Both parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The district court granted the defendants’ motions and denied A+PEL’s motions, finding that A+PEL’s Mentor Teacher training materials and Client List were not protectable trade secrets and that A+PEL failed to establish damages for its LUTPA and breach of fiduciary duty claims. A+PEL appealed to the Fifth Circuit. 

Case Information

Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana v. EDU20/20, L.L.C., No. 24-30640, 2026 WL 448019 (5th Cir. 2026) (unpublished)

Plaintiff: Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana

Defendants: EDU20/20, L.L.C.; Courtney Dumas; Miranda Britt

Judges: Hon. Dana M. Douglas (majority); Andrew S. Oldham (concurrence)

Analysis and Outcome

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that A+PEL’s (1) Mentor Teacher training, (2) Client List, and (3) Member Database were not protectable trade secrets under the DTSA and LUTSA. 

Mentor Teacher Training – No Secrecy

First, the court held that the Mentor Teacher training was not a trade secret because A+PEL never took steps to maintain its secrecy. The training was shared with participants who had no obligation to keep materials confidential. 

Client List – Failed to Prove Existence 

Second, A+PEL failed to produce competent summary judgment evidence that the Client List even existed. When the defendants requested the list during discovery, A+PEL produced only transaction lists and conference registration lists that did not match its description of the alleged trade secret. The court held that counsel’s assertion at oral argument that he “believed” the list was in the record was insufficient to justify reversal. 

Member Database – Not a Protectable Trade Secret

Finally, while the Member Database’s existence was undisputed, A+PEL failed to show the information was not readily ascertainable or that it derived independent economic value from secrecy. The court distinguished two cases that A+PEL cited on appeal, noting that unlike those cases involving private clients, A+PEL’s members were primarily Louisiana school district employees whose information was available through public records requests under the Louisiana Public Records Act. The court concluded that A+PEL had not shown that compilation of the information could only have been accomplished at considerable expense and, thus, was not a protectable trade secret.

Concurrence

In a concurring opinion, Judge Oldham agreed the trade secrets claims failed but disagreed with the majority’s reasoning. He argued that A+PEL adequately demonstrated that its Client List and Member Database were trade secrets because they included hard-to-compile contact information developed over years of relationship-building. He concluded, however, that the claims still failed because A+PEL offered no evidence that Britt or the other defendants misappropriated the trade secrets; although Britt accessed the Member Database before resigning, there was no evidence that she used or disclosed the information. 

Why It Matters

This decision underscores the stringent requirements for establishing trade secret status, particularly for organizations dealing with publicly accessible information. Importantly, information that can be compiled from public sources — even if time-consuming to gather — is unlikely to qualify as a trade secret. The fact that information requires effort to compile is not enough; plaintiffs must show that the information derives independent economic value from its secrecy and that the information was kept secret.