Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
136 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (2001)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Del Monte Fresh Produce Company (Del Monte) (plaintiff) sued its rival, Dole Food Company, Inc. (Dole) (defendant), for misappropriating Del Monte’s trade secrets in violation of Florida’s version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). Del Monte alleged that it had spent years developing a so-called MD-2 variety of pineapple that proved to be very popular with American consumers. Del Monte further alleged that Dole illicitly obtained MD-2 samples from Del Monte’s Costa Rican pineapple plantation and used those samples to develop a similar, competing variety of pineapple. Dole moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim on the grounds that a pineapple cannot be protected as a trade secret. The federal district court noted that, in a case decided under Iowa’s version of the UTSA, the Eighth Circuit ruled that genetic material from commercially developed, cultivated corn was a protected trade secret even though seeds from that cultivar were readily available on the open market. The district court rejected, as unsupported by law or logic, Dole’s attempt to distinguish the Eighth Circuit case on the grounds that corn reproduces sexually whereas pineapple reproduces asexually.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gold, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.