Bayer U.S., LLC v. Zeng
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hai Zeng's Motion to Dismiss 8 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen R. Clark on 7/31/2020. (SMM)
Case: 4:20-cv-00431-SRC Doc. #: 14 Filed: 07/31/20 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 71
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BAYER U.S., LLC,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
HAI ZENG,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:20-cv-00431 SRC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
In its Complaint, Bayer alleges Zeng misappropriated confidential information in
violation of company policies, his employment agreement, and federal and state law. Bayer
asserts seven counts against Zeng: (1) Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, (2)
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets under the Defendant Trade Secrets Act of 2016, (3) Violation
of the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act, (4) Breach of Contract, (5) Conversion, (6)
Replevin, and (7) Violation of the Missouri Computer Data Access and Fraud Statute. Zeng
filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of Bayer’s Complaint. Doc. 8. The Court denies the
Motion.
II.
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
In 2016, Zeng began working for Monsanto as a Business Architect (Supply Chain) in St.
Louis County, Missouri. As part of his employment, Zeng executed an Employment Agreement,
in which he agreed to comply with the policies and procedures of Monsanto, including those
related to security. He also agreed to protect the confidential, trade secret, or proprietary
character of all company confidential information, including to not use or disclose any
1
Case: 4:20-cv-00431-SRC Doc. #: 14 Filed: 07/31/20 Page: 2 of 6 PageID #: 72
confidential information unless necessary for his job. In 2018, Bayer acquired Monsanto, and as
a result, is the successor of interest of Monsanto.
In April 2018, Bayer’s internal data-security system alerted that Zeng had sent messages
over his corporate email to other company employees about a multi-level marketing
arrangement. This appeared to violate company policies so Bayer’s internal security team
conducted a review of Zeng’s use of company computer systems and data. This review revealed
that Zeng had violated the company’s Information Security Policy in several ways including the
unauthorized use of a proxy web browser application on a Bayer device. Bayer discovered Zeng
had also deleted applications, application data, credentials, and files from his Bayer iPhone and
had taken hundreds of confidential files and documents by sending them to his personal email
accounts and by uploading them to his personal Dropbox account.
Bayer did not authorize the removal of these confidential files, which included sensitive
information about Bayer’s operations, products, and business plans. One file taken, the
“Scheduled Data Sheets,” contained information outputs from a confidential, proprietary data
optimization model that Monsanto used to develop its production, supply, and distribution plans.
Someone could use the data in these sheets to determine Monsanto’s future production and
inventory plans, including location-specific inventory information. Bayer, through Monsanto,
invested substantial resources in developing this model and derives substantial economic value
from this data remaining secret.
Zeng also took a Monsanto customer information database that identified hundreds of
customers within a particular geographic region along with their contact information. Bayer,
through Monsanto, invested substantial resources in creating this database and derives substantial
2
Case: 4:20-cv-00431-SRC Doc. #: 14 Filed: 07/31/20 Page: 3 of 6 PageID #: 73
economic value from it remaining secret. A competitor could use this database for customer
outreach and marketing without making the investment Monsanto did to create it.
At all times, Bayer has taken measures to preserve the confidentiality of these and other
materials including contractual non-disclosure obligations for all persons having access to the
materials, detailed policies governing the use and dissemination of confidential materials; and an
internal data-security system to identify suspicious access and use of confidential data.
In October 2018, Bayer suspended Zeng, with pay, pending an internal investigation.
Bayer has diverted substantial and valuable employee time and efforts to investigate Zeng’s
actions, retained a third-party forensics investigation firm to whom Bayer has paid more than
$20,000, and retained outside counsel to investigate and determine the need for additional
remedial steps to protect Bayer’s confidential information.
II.
STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The notice pleading standard of Rule
8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to give “a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” To meet this standard and to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and
citation omitted). This requirement of facial plausibility means the factual content of the
plaintiff’s allegations must “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co.,
911 F.3d 505, 512 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The Court must grant all
reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872-
3
Case: 4:20-cv-00431-SRC Doc. #: 14 Filed: 07/31/20 Page: 4 of 6 PageID #: 74
73 (8th Cir. 2010). Ordinarily, only the facts alleged in the complaint are considered for
purposes of a motion to dismiss; however, materials attached to the complaint may also be
considered in construing its sufficiency. Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir.
2011).
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court “must liberally construe a complaint in favor
of the plaintiff[.]” Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 592 F.3d 853, 862 (8th Cir.
2010). However, if a claim fails to allege one of the elements necessary to recover on a legal
theory, the Court must dismiss that claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346, 355 (8th Cir. 2011). Threadbare recitals of
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678; Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although courts must accept all
factual allegations as true, they are not bound to take as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations and citation omitted); Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 677-78.
III.
DISCUSSION
In his Motion, Zeng lists numerous arguments as to why the Court should dismiss
Bayer’s Complaint. Each argument is one to two sentences with no supporting citations beyond
one cite to Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937 (2009). The Court need not consider Zeng’s undeveloped arguments. See United States v.
Roberts, 881 F.3d 1049, 1053 (8th Cir. 2018) (refusing to consider an argument not developed in
the briefs); see also Loc. R. 4.01(A) (“Unless otherwise directed by the Court, the moving party
must file with each motion a memorandum in support of the motion, including any relevant
argument and citations to any authorities on which the party relies.”). The Court will
4
Case: 4:20-cv-00431-SRC Doc. #: 14 Filed: 07/31/20 Page: 5 of 6 PageID #: 75
nonetheless consider Zeng’s Motion on the merits but advises his counsel to comply with all
controlling authority in his future filings.
Zeng argues that he does not have an employment contract with Bayer because Bayer is
not a signatory to the contract, Bayer has not pled fraud with specificity, Bayer has not pled a
sufficient breach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Court should dismiss all pendant
state claims, Bayer has not adequately alleged harm or damages, and more. He also asks the
Court to stay these proceedings because he has initiated a complaint with the EEOC for
employment discrimination.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the Complaint and finds Bayer has sufficiently
pleaded each of its claims under the appropriate statute or common law. In its first count, Bayer
asserts several violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act including 18 U.S.C. §§
1030(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5). Section (a)(2) requires Bayer to allege Zeng intentionally accessed
a computer without authorization, or by exceeding his authorization, and obtain, as it relates
here, information from any protected computer. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2). Section (a)(4) requires
Bayer to allege Zeng knowingly and with intent to defraud accessed a protected computer
without authorization, or by exceeding his authorization, and “by means of such conduct
furthered the intended fraud” and obtained anything of value, besides the use of the computer.
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4). Finally, sections (a)(5)(A) and (C), under which Bayer makes its
allegations, requires Bayer to (A) allege Zeng knowingly caused the transmission of a program,
information, code, or command, and as a result intentionally caused damage without
authorization to a protected computer, and (C) intentionally access a protected computer without
authorization resulting in damage and loss. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A), (C). Bayer’s factual
5
Case: 4:20-cv-00431-SRC Doc. #: 14 Filed: 07/31/20 Page: 6 of 6 PageID #: 76
allegations, reiterated above, state a claim under each of these sections of the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act.
In its second count, Bayer asserts a violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and in its
third count a violation of the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act. To plead a claim under either
statute, Bayer must allege the existence of a protectable trade secret, misappropriation of those
trade secrets by Zeng, and damages. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 417.450417.467; Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust v. Cori, No. 4:16CV01631 JAR, 2016 WL 6611133 at
*2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2016). Bayer sufficiently alleges the information at issue constituted trade
secrets, Zeng misappropriated those secrets, and Bayer incurred damages as a result. See 18
U.S.C. § 1839(3), (5) (definitions of “trade secret” and “misappropriation”); Mo. Rev. Stat. §
417.453(2), (4) (same).
The remainder of Bayer’s claims the Court will not address individually. Bayer has
sufficiently stated a claim under each count and the Court finds Zeng’s arguments to the contrary
lack merit and support. Additionally, the Court sees no reason to stay the case due to a potential
pending EEOC complaint, nor does Zeng provide any support for this argument.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hai Zeng’s Motion to Dismiss [8] is
DENIED.
So Ordered this 31st day of July, 2020.
STEPHEN R. CLARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?