Photo of Matt Diehr

Matt has both first-chair and second-chair trial experience defending individual and corporate clients against alleged violations of United States criminal and civil laws. Complementing Matt’s litigation practice, he has assisted a number of corporate clients in conducting independent investigations in response to allegations of corporate or individual wrongdoing.

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), which amended the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to create a federal civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation. The DTSA governs misappropriations occurring after the effective date of May 11, 2016.

Although trade secret theft has been a federal crime since 1996, civil claims for trade secret misappropriation were almost always governed by state law. A corporation unable to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction was thus limited to state court. Although every state but two has adopted a variation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, these statutory variations and differing court interpretations created uncertainty in the application of trade secret law, an area of growing importance for companies increasingly dependent on electronic security.

Corporations conducting internal investigations need to be wary that information learned and materials generated in the course of these investigations may later fall into the hands of adversaries in litigation.

A recent decision by a federal district court, United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co., 4 F.Supp.3d 161 (D.D.C., 2014)., demonstrates this pitfall.

Corporate clients defending class action lawsuits in state courts within the Eighth Circuit should take note of the recent decision Atwell v. Bos. Scientific Corp., 740 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir., 2013). One portion of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 allows for removal of “mass actions” from state court to federal court, often thought to be a more favorable venue for defendants in many instances.