Miami Trade Secrets Attorney

Under both FUTSA and the DTSA, a trade secret is information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable, and that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. That can include formulas, source code, manufacturing processes, pricing models, and — in the right circumstances — customer lists and compilations. The two requirements that decide most cases are value-from-secrecy and reasonable measures. Information that is publicly available, easily reverse-engineered, or shared without restrictions will not qualify, no matter how valuable.

FUTSA is Florida’s version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Fla. Stat. § 688.001 et seq.) and applies in Florida state court. The DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836) is the federal statute, creating a federal cause of action when the trade secret relates to interstate or foreign commerce. The substantive definitions are similar, but the choice matters: the DTSA provides access to federal court and an ex parte seizure remedy in extraordinary cases, while FUTSA displaces most overlapping Florida common-law claims based on the same facts — a preemption issue that frequently narrows state-court complaints. Many Florida cases plead both.

Courts look at what a company actually did, not what its policies say. NDAs, access restrictions, password controls, exit interviews, and marking of confidential documents all matter — but a written policy that nobody follows can be worse than no policy, because it documents the standard the company failed to meet. Reasonable measures are proportional: a startup is not held to Fortune 100 security standards, but every company must show real, implemented steps. This is one of the most heavily litigated issues in trade secret cases, and it is decided on facts that exist before the lawsuit is ever filed.

In genuine emergencies — a departing employee who downloaded files on the way out, a competitor about to use stolen designs — Florida state and federal courts can enter temporary restraining orders within days, sometimes without notice to the other side. But speed cuts both ways: the moving party must present concrete evidence of misappropriation and irreparable harm, and a rushed, overbroad injunction request can be denied or later dissolved. Forensic evidence — device imaging, download logs, email metadata — usually decides these motions.

The CHOICE Act, effective July 2025, significantly strengthened the enforceability of noncompete and garden-leave agreements for higher-earning Florida employees, permitting covered agreements of up to four years and creating a framework under which courts presumptively enjoin violations. It changes the strategic calculus for both employers drafting agreements and employees considering a move. It does not replace trade secret law — misappropriation claims under FUTSA and the DTSA remain independent — but the two regimes now interact in ways that affect drafting, hiring, and litigation strategy.

Three years under both FUTSA and the DTSA, running from when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. In practice, waiting is almost always a mistake for trade secret owners: delay undermines the irreparable-harm showing needed for an injunction and gives the information time to lose its secrecy.

Preserve evidence immediately — do not let IT wipe or reissue the employee’s devices. Image the laptop, pull access and download logs, and preserve email. Then assess quickly whether the information taken actually qualifies as a trade secret and whether your protective measures will withstand scrutiny, because those questions determine whether an emergency motion will succeed. The first two weeks shape the entire case.

Potentially — but threats and liability are different things. Exposure depends on what the employee actually took (if anything), what the new employer knew or should have known, and whether the claimed secrets meet the statutory definition. Companies can substantially reduce risk through clean onboarding: written certifications, device hygiene, and walling the new hire off from areas where the former employer’s information could be relevant. If you receive a demand letter, do not have the employee respond directly — the response often becomes Exhibit A.

Yes, in ways courts are just beginning to address. Employees pasting confidential information into public AI tools can destroy secrecy; AI systems trained on proprietary data raise novel misappropriation questions; and AI’s ability to independently derive certain information pressures the “not readily ascertainable” requirement. Eric writes regularly about the intersection of AI and trade secret law, including in Law360, and counsels companies on AI policies designed to preserve trade secret protection.