Strategic Directions Group v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 00-3802.

• Decision Date: 12 June 2002
• Docket Number: No. 00-3802.,00-3802.
• Citation: 293 F.3d 1062
• Parties: STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

293 F.3d 1062

STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 00-3802.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 16, 2001.

Filed: June 12, 2002.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, David S. Doty, J Andrew S. Birrell, argued, Minneapolis, MN (R. Travis Snider, on the brief), for appellant.

Peter M., Lancaster, argued, Minneapolis, MN (Ashleigh E. Varley, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief), for appellee.

BEFORE: HANSEN, Chief Judge,¹ and MCMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Strategic Directions Group, Inc. (SDG) appeals from a judgment of the district court² granting summary judgment in favor of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (Bristol-Myers) in this trade secrets and breach of contract case. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

SDG is a marketing research company owned and operated by Carol and Doran Levy. Bristol-Myers is a pharmaceutical company which manufactures Pravachol, a drug designed to reduce cholesterol. In 1996, a Bristol-Myers' marketing manager read the Levys' 1993 book, Segmenting the Mature Market, which dealt with marketing strategies for targeting consumers over 50 years old. One chapter of the book dealt with health issues. Based on survey responses to 50 classification questions, the book divided the market into four different kinds of customers, or segments. The classifications questions were statements to which the respondents were asked to agree or disagree, such as "I am careful to eat a balanced diet" and "I believe in getting a yearly physical from my doctor."

In May 1997 Bristol-Myers agreed to pay SDG $275,000 for "a copy of a reduced battery of classification questions for use in connection with the collection of data from persons calling a [Bristol-Myers' toll-free] telephone number" published in Pravachol advertisements. The agreement further provided that the questions were only to be used "in connection with the database collected for Pravachol and only in connection with the [toll-free] telephone number." In June 1997, SDG submitted nine questions relating to diet, medication, medical check-ups, and insurance. Bristol-Myers used some of them in a set of questions posed to callers to the toll-free telephone number. For example, callers to the telephone number were asked to agree or disagree to varying degrees to statements, including "I maintain a regular schedule of medical check-ups with my doctor" and "I am careful to eat a balanced diet." Bristol-Myers also used three of the classification questions in a follow-up survey of persons who had called the toll-free number.

In 1999, SDG filed a complaint against Bristol-Myers, alleging two breach of contract claims and a misappropriation of trade secrets claim in violation of Minn. Stat. § 325C.01. The district court granted Bristol-Myers's motion for summary judgment as to the trade secret claim and as to one of the breach of contract claims. As to the trade secret claim, the district court held that the nine questions SDG had provided Bristol-Myers were not trade secrets, because they were not secret. Among other things, the district court noted the questions were readily ascertainable in public sources, such as the Levys' 1993 book, SDG annual surveys, and a copyright filing. Indeed, the district court noted that the nine questions SDG claimed were trade secrets were specifically designed for public consumption on the toll-free telephone number. The district court also held that Bristol-Myers had not breached the 1997 agreement contract by using some of the questions in the follow-up survey of callers to the toll-free telephone number. After the parties settled the breach of contract claim concerning Bristol-Myers' use of the questions beyond the agreement's termination date, the district entered a final judgment. SDG filed a timely notice of appeal.

Jurisdiction in the district court was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

DISCUSSION

"We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court." American Airlines, Inc. v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Inc., 114 F.3d 108, 110 (8th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Bristol-Myers on SDG's trade secrets claim. To qualify as a trade secret under Minn.Stat. § 325C.01, "(1) the information must not be generally known nor readily ascertainable; (2) the information must derive independent economic value from secrecy; [and] (3) the plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy." Widmark v. Northrup King Co., 530 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Minn.Ct.App.1995). SDG does not, and could not, dispute that the individual questions were readily...