Case Background
Kadyn Del Toro spent almost five years at J.R. Simplot Company, a food and agriculture company based in Boise. In July 2022, he left to join Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC, a direct competitor. Two months later, Simplot sued him. The company claimed he left with confidential sales data stored on USB drives. Del Toro denied possessing or using any Simplot trade secrets. Four years later, the dispute went before a federal jury in Boise.
Simplot filed suit on September 27, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. U.S. Magistrate Judge Debora K. Grasham presided after both parties consented. Simplot hired Del Toro as a program administrator on October 9, 2017. He later became a brand manager and, in August 2020, an insights and analytics manager. When he was hired, he signed an Employee Secrecy and Confidentiality Agreement.
Cause
Del Toro began looking for a new job in about May 2022. He interviewed with Wilbur-Ellis in June 2022 and accepted its offer on July 7. He resigned from Simplot on July 22, 2022, and started at Wilbur-Ellis on August 1. In his Answer, he admitted that Wilbur-Ellis was a direct competitor of Simplot.
Simplot alleged that Del Toro backed up his work computer and iPhone to USB devices beginning in April 2022. It claimed he made another backup on July 14, 2022, after he accepted the new job. According to the Complaint, the devices held about 172,000 files. Simplot alleged these included sales reports, customer data and password lists. It also alleged he used a Simplot dashboard to analyze Wilbur-Ellis data for his job application.
At his exit interview, Del Toro returned his Simplot devices. He also signed an acknowledgment stating that he held no Simplot business materials. He did not mention the USB drives. Simplot alleged he accessed files such as “2019-2022 Customer Seed Sales” on August 3, 2022, after he had left. Simplot sent him a demand letter on August 10, 2022.
Injury
Simplot alleged that Del Toro’s conduct devalued its confidential business information. The Complaint stated that its sales data and internal reports drew much of their value from secrecy. In his confidentiality agreement, Del Toro acknowledged that a violation could cause harm that “cannot be easily quantified.”
Damages
Simplot sought compensatory and exemplary damages, a permanent injunction and the return of its information. It also asked for costs, interest and attorneys’ fees.
Simplot’s damages expert, Aminta Raffalovich, estimated unjust enrichment damages of $691,681. She measured them as the costs Del Toro would have incurred to develop the information himself. She also calculated reasonable royalty damages of $691,681. According to a defense expert report, she treated the two figures as not additive.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): J.R. Simplot Company
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Benjamin D. Perkins [Terminated: 03/05/2024] | Dana M. Herberholz | Elliot J. Hales | Hailee Elledge | Jordan Lee Stott
Defendant(s): Kadyn Del Toro
Counsel for Defendant(s): Donald W. Myers | Jeremy D. Sosna | Justin Dutcher Brown | Kyle D. Kennedy | Lauren E. Clements [Terminated: 11/14/2024]
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Simplot asserted five claims. They were breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty and conversion. Simplot also sued under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Idaho Trade Secrets Act.
On April 25, 2025, the Court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. It found that Del Toro breached the agreement’s return of property clause as a matter of law. The breach occurred when he failed to turn over the USB drive at his exit interview. Whether he accessed or used Simplot information afterward remained disputed. The Court also barred unjust enrichment damages on the contract claim. The trade secret claims proceeded toward trial.
The Court narrowed the loyalty claim. It found the Idaho Trade Secrets Act preempted the portions based on downloading and retaining data. It also rejected the theory based on the Simplot dashboard. Only the theory based on exit interview misrepresentations survived. The Court granted summary judgment to Del Toro on conversion. It declined to extend Idaho conversion law to intangible digital files.
The same order granted Simplot’s spoliation motion in part. The Court found Del Toro searched online about deleting files, notably on the day of the demand letter. It also found he used a wiping program called Eraser and deleted his browser history. The Court concluded he intended to deprive Simplot of the evidence and drew adverse inferences for summary judgment.
In July 2026, Del Toro asked the Court to revise its breach of contract ruling. On August 11, 2026, the Court granted that motion. It concluded that questions of fact existed on whether Del Toro breached the return of property clause. As a result, the breach question went to the jury. The Court also denied terminating sanctions and reserved an adverse inference instruction for trial.
Defense
Del Toro denied the core allegations in his Answer. He denied accessing Simplot files after leaving. He also argued that the information did not qualify as a trade secret under federal or state law. His other affirmative defenses included good faith, failure to mitigate damages, unclean hands and estoppel. According to the summary judgment order, he maintained he did not believe the USB drives held Simplot information. He also stated that he provided the drive promptly after receiving the demand letter.
Del Toro described the exit interview as taking place at a local Starbucks. According to his Answer, Simplot insisted he sign the acknowledgment on the spot. He asserted that he had no chance to check whether he still held Simplot information.
On spoliation, Del Toro denied destroying Simplot information or forensic evidence. He maintained he removed or transferred only sensitive pictures of his children.
Jury Verdict
Trial began on September 8, 2026, and lasted four days. On September 11, 2026, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for Del Toro.
The jury found that Simplot failed to prove Del Toro breached a contract. It found that Simplot failed to prove a breach of the duty of loyalty. The jury also found that Simplot failed to prove Del Toro misappropriated a trade secret. It answered “No” on whether any misappropriation was willful and malicious. Having found no liability, the jury awarded no damages.
On September 14, 2026, the Court entered judgment for Del Toro and against Simplot on all claims with prejudice.
Post-trial Motions
On September 28, 2026, Del Toro filed a bill of costs and a motion for attorneys’ fees. Simplot opposed the fee motion on October 19, 2026. The fee motion remained pending.
Meanwhile, Simplot filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 2026. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals assigned the appeal Case No. 26-6842. Simplot filed a transcript request on October 27, 2026.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]