When two top executives walked out of Columbia Sportswear and into roles at a rival brand – with what Columbia alleges were thousands of internal files in tow – they set off a legal battle that’s now headed for trial. In a newly-issued ruling, a federal court in Oregon has allowed Columbia Sportswear’s trade secrets and some contract-based claims against former executives Dean Rurak and William Ferreira, who jumped ship for competitor Marolina Outdoor, to proceed – while others were dismissed.
While Judge Amy Baggio of the U.S. Court for the District of Oregon dismissed Columbia’s tort-based conversion claim as preempted under Oregon law, it allowed the company’s core trade secrets and breach of contract claims to move forward, citing unresolved factual disputes over how the information was acquired and whether Columbia suffered damages.
The Background in Brief: Columbia filed suit against Rurak and Ferreira (collectively, the “defendants”) in 2023, alleging that its former Senior Vice President and Chief Product Officer, and Director of Global Merchandising, respectively, downloaded internal documents – including strategic plans, pricing data, and brand comparisons – to personal hard drives while negotiating roles at Marolina Outdoor.
After the two former executives joined Marolina, which owns competing fishing and hunting brands Huk and Nomad, Columbia lodged trade secrets misappropriation claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and Oregon state law, as well as conversion, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty causes of action.
In an opinion and order on May 28, Judge Baggio granted partial summary judgment in Columbia’s favor on several contract claims, dismissed the conversion claim, and denied all parties’ motions as to the trade secrets claims.
Trade Secrets & Competitive Leakage
At the heart of the case are files copied by the defendants in the weeks leading up to their October 2022 resignations – over 3,000 by Rurak and more than 1,700 by Ferreira. These included internal strategy documents, pricing files, and, in Ferreira’s case, a detailed presentation comparing Columbia’s PFG brand to Huk, Marolina’s fishing apparel line. While Columbia claims the files constitute valuable trade secrets, the court declined to rule in its favor, finding that whether the information meets the statutory definition of a trade secret must be decided at trial.
Both former executives argue they did not use or disclose Columbia’s information after leaving the company. They turned over their hard drives in early 2023 for forensic review and emphasized that many of the documents were personal or harmless. But the court found that under both federal and Oregon trade secrets law, improper acquisition, alone, can constitute misappropriation – even if the information was never actually used. Given the timing of the downloads, the context of the defendants’ job transitions, and the volume of sensitive material involved, the court ruled that a jury should resolve whether trade secret misappropriation occurred.
“No Reasonable Dispute”
Though the trade secret issues remain open, the court found that certain breaches of contract by both defendants were beyond dispute. Ferreira breached his 2016 Proprietary Information and Noncompetition Agreement by taking Columbia’s confidential information with him when he resigned – and then deleting those files from his personal hard drive after receiving a legal demand. He also failed to comply with Columbia’s Code of Business Conduct, which he had agreed to follow under the same contract.
Rurak, for his part, breached multiple agreements. The court found he violated the non-solicitation provisions in both his 2020 Proprietary Information and Noncompetition Agreement and a series of Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements when he facilitated Ferreira’s recruitment to Marolina. Internal messages revealed that Rurak provided Marolina’s then-CEO with Ferreira’s cell phone number and discussed the best approach to initiating contact – conduct the court determined clearly fell within the scope of prohibited solicitation.
Rurak also breached a General Release Agreement signed shortly after his departure from Columbia. The agreement required him to confirm he had returned all company property. In reality, he retained a personal hard drive containing thousands of Columbia documents. The court noted that this retention directly contradicted the certification he made in exchange for continued severance payments.
A Mixed Bag on Damages
Despite finding clear breaches, the court did not award Columbia any immediate recovery. It rejected Columbia’s attempt to use Rurak’s General Release Agreement to claw back severance payments, ruling that Columbia had not specifically pleaded a breach of the clause that would have triggered repayment. The court also declined to grant restitution or rescission of stock awards under Rurak’s RSU agreements, noting that Columbia did not expressly seek such remedies in its complaint.
Still, the court found that Columbia had produced enough evidence to pursue damages related to its internal efforts to recover its information. This includes costs associated with forensic investigation and IT response, which the court held were sufficient to survive summary judgment. Whether Columbia can prove further harm – or whether the passage of time has rendered its claims for injunctive relief stale – will be determined at trial.
Looking Ahead
Columbia’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Rurak will also move forward. As a senior executive, Rurak owed Columbia a heightened duty of loyalty. The court found that his conduct – negotiating with a competitor while attending Columbia leadership meetings, retaining company documents, and helping to facilitate a colleague’s exit – could support a finding that he breached that duty. Because both sides presented plausible evidence, the court declined to resolve the issue on summary judgment.
The Columbia case lands at a moment when courts across the country are sharpening expectations around trade secret claims – demanding precise identifications, weighing the scope of contractual remedies, and granting relief even before full disclosures are made. Recent decisions, including a Tenth Circuit ruling dismissing a claim for vague trade secret definitions and a Massachusetts court issuing a broad permanent injunction, reflect the growing complexity – and risks – facing companies navigating executive exits and data migration.
Against this background, Columbia’s ability to clearly define what was taken, prove its competitive value, and show misuse could make the difference between a high-profile win and a costly standoff.
The case is Columbia Sportswear Co. v. Ferreira, et al., 3:23-cv-00594 (D. Or.).
Share
