HARRISBURG – Litigation from the Hershey chocolate company against a former executive it accused of stealing its trade secrets before going to work for a competitor has been dismissed with prejudice and closed.
The Hershey Co. initially filed a complaint on Jan. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against former executive Doug Behrens alleging breach of contract, through his alleged theft of trade secrets obtained during his roles at Hershey and Amplify, before going to work for the Kind food company.
Following Hershey’s purchase of Amplify in January 2018, Behrens continued as president of Amplify. Four months later, in May 2018, he began his position as chief customer officer with Hershey.
During this time, Hershey alleges Behrens had access to trade secrets and confidential, proprietary information during his time with both companies. It claimed Behrens stole the companies’ information and that prior to his leaving the company to work for Kind, LLC, he sent more than 100 confidential Hershey documents to his personal email and deleted data from his laptop.
On Jan. 27, Behrens filed an answer to Hershey’s lawsuit, in which he adamantly denied stealing their trade secrets and confidential documents and characterized the litigation as a “vindictive attempt” to “smear” his reputation.
“Hershey’s lawsuit is a vindictive attempt to smear the reputation of a former employee with accusations that Hershey knows to be false. The core of Hershey’s Complaint is the false allegation that Mr. Behrens ‘used or disclosed’ Hershey confidential information,” the January answer read, in part.
“But what Hershey leaves out of its complaint are the facts that (a) Mr. Behrens voluntarily submitted to a comprehensive and highly invasive examination of his personal electronic devices and files, in which Hershey’s lawyers were heavily involved; (b) the examination proved that Mr. Behrens had not ‘used or disclosed’ any Hershey confidential information; (c) Mr. Behrens voluntarily provided a sworn statement to Hershey to that effect; and (d) Hershey accepted that sworn statement and simultaneously provided its own written representation to him confirming that the exhaustive examination had revealed no evidence of Mr. Behrens using or disclosing any Hershey confidential information.”
Behrens’ attorneys added that “on the same day that Hershey accepted Mr. Behrens’ statement and provided its own written representation, Hershey filed this lawsuit setting forth accusations that directly contradict that representation.”
“In making such misrepresentations, Hershey presumably hides behind the defamation and libel privilege of court filings in an effort to assassinate Mr. Behrens’ character and destroy his reputation,” defense counsel stated.
Counsel for Behrens implied that in their view, the lawsuit was a form of corporate retaliation after Behrens’ resignation from Hershey.
“Evidently, Hershey feels vindictive toward Mr. Behrens and motivated to smear his reputation with knowingly false allegations because he had the temerity to resign from Hershey, after more than a year of Hershey’s broken promises to him.”
But on March 5, counsel filed a mutual stipulation of dismissal which ordered that the action, including all claims asserted herein, was to be dismissed with prejudice and without fees or costs awarded to either party.
Prior to the close of litigation, Hershey sought repayment of Behrens’ $250,000 signing bonus, $367,961 in cash equivalency of his 2,392 shares of Hershey stock, $3,698 in dividends and all other just relief.
The plaintiff was represented by Michael S. Burkhardt and Michael J. Puma of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, in Philadelphia.
The defendant was represented by Peter H. LeVan Jr. of LeVan Law Group in Philadelphia, plus Jyotin Hamid of Debevoise & Plimpton, in New York, N.Y.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:20-cv-00140
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com