“No Short-Circuiting Summary Judgment” – A Commentary on
Snyder v. Beam Technologies, Inc., 134 F.4th 1078 (10th Cir. 2025)

I. Introduction

In Snyder v. Beam Technologies, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a published opinion addressing two distinct but frequently recurring litigation problems:

1. What evidentiary steps are required of a plaintiff, other than ownership, to preserve the secrecy of a customer list under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA); and
2. Whether a district court may effectively grant summary judgment on damages by using a “Rule 702 Order” that excludes not only an expert witness but all evidence on the subject.

The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer on the trade-secret counts but simultaneously reversed the district court’s “Rule 702 Order,” holding that the procedural protections of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 cannot be bypassed. The decision therefore crystallises a new procedural principle in the Tenth Circuit: a court may not convert an evidentiary gate-keeping ruling into de facto summary judgment without giving the non-movant clear Rule 56 notice and opportunity to respond.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

John Snyder, a former Guardian Life Insurance employee, downloaded a nationwide broker list (≈40,000 entries) from Guardian’s internal CRM software and later brought it to his brief 2018 employment at Beam Technologies. When Snyder tried to circulate state-specific subsets to colleagues, he inadvertently included the entire list as an unprotected tab in each spreadsheet and sent it to ten Beam employees.

After Beam terminated him, Snyder sued in the District of Colorado alleging federal and state trade-secret misappropriation as well as three Colorado common-law/fraud-type claims. The district court:

• Granted Beam summary judgment on the DTSA and CUTSA claims, reasoning that Snyder had not “shown ownership” of the list.
• Issued a separate order excluding Snyder’s damages expert (Mr. Adamy) under Rule 702 and, in the same order, forbade any evidence of lost wages by any witness.

Snyder appealed both rulings.

III. Summary of the Judgment

1. Trade-Secret Claims (Affirmed on Alternate Ground)
   • The panel refused to adopt “ownership” as a mandatory element under CUTSA, citing its earlier decision in Gates Rubber.
   • Nevertheless, it affirmed because Snyder failed a different element common to both statutes: reasonable measures to maintain secrecy. By emailing the list without restrictions, labels, passwords, or any remedial claw-back, Snyder forfeited trade-secret status.
2. Rule 702 Order (Reversed)
   • The district court’s wholesale exclusion of all lost-wage evidence constituted a sua sponte summary-judgment ruling made under the wrong procedural vehicle.
   • Because Snyder had no notice that he needed to marshal all non-expert proof on damages, the order was reversed and remanded.

IV. Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Indus., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993) – Long-standing Tenth Circuit formulation listing possession, not ownership, as the first CUTSA element. The Snyder panel relied on this to question the district court’s “ownership” focus.
• Double Eagle Alloys v. Hooper, 134 F.4th 1078 (10th Cir. 2025) – A sister 2025 decision elaborating DTSA/CUTSA overlap and reasonable-measures requirement; cited extensively for the proposition that inadequate precautions destroy secrecy.
• Hertz v. Luzenac Group, 576 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2009) – Articulated “reasonable under the circumstances” test; used to anchor the court’s factual analysis of Snyder’s conduct.
• Sports Racing Services v. SCCA, 131 F.3d 874 (10th Cir. 1997) and Oldham v. O.K. Farms, 871 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2017) – Provide the rule that sua sponte summary judgment requires notice; used to invalidate the over-broad Rule 702 Order.
• Additional citations – Yellowfin Yachts (11th Cir.), Strategic Directions (8th Cir.), Buffets Inc. (9th Cir.) support national consensus on secrecy maintenance.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Element-by-Element Approach
   Instead of accepting “lack of ownership” as dispositive, the panel examined all essential elements. Finding an absence of reasonable secrecy measures was enough to affirm notwithstanding uncertainty over possession vs. ownership.
2. Secrecy Measures Standard
   The court adopted a concrete, fact-intensive benchmark: labels, passwords, NDAs, restricted distribution, and remedial claw-back are customary steps; Snyder had done none. The “blast-radius” concept from Gates Rubber was revived—secret holders must mitigate accidental disclosure.
3. Misappropriation Alternative
   Although unnecessary to the holding, the panel noted that voluntary emailing without conditions undermines any allegation of “improper acquisition.”
4. Procedural Holding on Rule 702
   • Designation of an expert is not a prerequisite to all damages proof.
   • A Rule 702 motion addresses admissibility, not legal sufficiency.
   • When a court decides substantive entitlement to damages, it must comply with Rule 56 notice requirements, shifting burdens, and allow full factual development.

C. Impact of the Decision

• Civil Procedure – District courts within the Tenth Circuit are now on clear notice: evidentiary gate-keeping may not be used as an “end-run” around summary judgment procedure. Failure to provide Rule 56 notice will invite reversal.
• Trade-Secret Litigation – Plaintiffs must document affirmative secrecy protocols. Mere after-the-fact assertions of confidentiality or informal work-product storage are inadequate.
• Employment Mobility Practices – Employers receiving information from new hires should confirm provenance and mitigate risk; the opinion implies that voluntary receipt may defeat misappropriation but could still raise business-tort exposure if secrecy was preserved.
• Possession vs. Ownership Debate – The panel’s dicta preserves uncertainty under CUTSA, signalling potential en banc or Colorado Supreme Court clarification. Litigators should plead both possession and ownership where feasible.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

Trade Secret

Information that derives economic value from not being generally known and is subject to reasonable secrecy efforts.

Reasonable Measures

Practical steps—NDAs, password protection, restricted folders, confidentiality legends—showing a genuine intent to guard secrecy.

Misappropriation

Acquiring, disclosing, or using the trade secret through improper means, breach of duty, or knowledge that it was obtained improperly.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702

Governs the admissibility of expert testimony; focuses on qualifications, relevance, and reliability.

Sua Sponte Summary Judgment

A court-initiated dismissal on the merits; permissible only if the losing party had notice and an opportunity to present all material evidence.

VI. Conclusion

Snyder v. Beam Technologies advances Tenth Circuit jurisprudence on two fronts. Substantively, it reinforces that a trade secret lives or dies by the owner’s vigilance; once carelessness strips secrecy, questions of ownership or misappropriation become academic. Procedurally, it establishes an unambiguous boundary: a Rule 702 ruling cannot morph into stealth summary judgment. Litigants must therefore (a) implement and document robust confidentiality protocols and (b) expect that any dispositive ruling on damages or liability will proceed under the full procedural protections of Rule 56. The case is a cautionary tale for employees transporting contacts and for courts tempted to resolve merits questions under the guise of evidentiary housekeeping.