United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30368

People Source Staffing Professionals, L.L.C., an Oklahoma 

limited liability company,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Anna Robertson, an individual; Wayne Williamson, an 

individual; Kathy Williamson, an individual; Shauna Bradley, 

an individual; Will Source, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:19-CV-430

Before Jolly, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Appellant People Source supplies temp workers. It brought various 

claims under Louisiana state law against its competitor Will Source and

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 25, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30368 Document: 00516447147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2022
No. 21-30368

2

several Will Source employees. The district court granted summary 

judgment to the defendants. We affirm. 

I.

This suit arises out of a “mass resignation” by People Source 

employees on March 15, 2019. People Source alleged that following the mass 

resignation, appellees conspired to (and did) set up Will Source to compete 

with People Source, and that they used People Source trade secrets and other 

confidential information to do so.

People Source sued the appellees in federal district court. It brought 

various claims under Louisiana state law. The district court granted summary 

judgment to the defendants. On appeal, People Source alleges that the 

district court made a host of errors that fall into two categories: (1) it 

improperly excluded certain evidence, and (2) it erroneously granted 

summary judgment to the appellees. 

II.

We start with the district court’s decision to strike evidence. Our 

review is for abuse of discretion. See Cambridge Toxicology Grp., Inc. v. 

Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169, 178 (5th Cir. 2007). Here, the district court struck two 

pieces of evidence.

The first was a document the parties call “the Petrin Agreement.”

People Source submitted this document as an attachment to a declaration by 

Courtney Keefover. The district court granted the motion to strike as to 

paragraph 11 of the Keefover declaration because it was not within the 

declarant’s personal knowledge. And it also agreed to strike the Petrin 

Agreement, which was attached as an exhibit in support of paragraph 11. The

district court excluded it after concluding “Courtney Keefover [couldn’t]

Case: 21-30368 Document: 00516447147 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2022
No. 21-30368

3

authenticate” the Petrin Agreement because it, too, was “not within her 

personal knowledge.”

We see no error in the district court’s conclusion, much less do we 

find an abuse of discretion. Although appellant was not obliged to 

authenticate its summary-judgment evidence, the summary-judgment rules 

permit a party to “object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact 

cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible evidence.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Upon objection, “[t]he burden is on the proponent to show 

that the material is admissible as presented or to explain the admissible form 

that is anticipated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) advisory committee’s note to 

2010 amendment. And here, although it was possible the Agreement could 

be “authenticated in other ways at trial,” the district court noted People 

Source “listed no witnesses who could authenticate” the document.

The second piece of stricken evidence was a document called “the 

Reeves Affidavit.” People Source produced it after the applicable discovery 

deadline, and the district court excluded it for that reason. District courts 

have “broad discretion” to control pretrial discovery, and a “decision to 

exclude evidence as a means of enforcing a pretrial order ‘must not be 

disturbed’ absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 

F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1990). There is no such abuse of discretion here.

III.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Kariuki v. Tarango, 

709 F.3d 495, 501 (5th Cir. 2013).

People Source first argues the district court erred in granting summary 

judgment on its claims under the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act 

(“LUTSA”). To make out a LUTSA claim, a plaintiff must establish 

“(a) the existence of a trade secret, (b) a misappropriation of the trade secret 

by another, and (c) the actual loss caused by the misappropriation.” Brand 

Case: 21-30368 Document: 00516447147 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/25/2022
No. 21-30368

4

Servs., L.L.C. v. Irex Corp., 909 F.3d 151, 156 (5th Cir. 2018)(quoting Reingold 

v. Swiftships, Inc., 126 F.3d 645, 646 (5th Cir. 1997)). The district court 

concluded People Source lacked evidence to create a triable fact issue on 

misappropriation and therefore was entitled to summary judgment on the 

LUTSA claims. We see no basis for disturbing that conclusion.

Appellant also argues the district court erred in granting summary 

judgment on its claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act 

(“LUTPA”). LUTPA makes unlawful “unfair methods of competition and 

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or 

commerce.” La. R.S. 51:1405. “[O]nly egregious actions involving 

elements of fraud, misrepresentation, deception, or other unethical conduct 

will be sanctioned based on LUTPA.” Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater 

Prod., Inc., 2009-1633, p. 12 (La. 4/23/10); 35 So. 3d 1053, 1060.

The district court thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented,

analyzed the LUTPA issues, and concluded People Source failed to provide 

evidence sufficient to create a triable fact issue. We have carefully reviewed 

the district court’s analysis and see no basis for disturbing it.

People Source next contends the district court erred by 

misinterpreting its conspiracy claim and “analyzing it solely according to the 

elements of a Louisiana state law fraud claim.” People Source’s complaint 

alleged a “conspiracy to commit fraud.” Accordingly, the district court laid 

out the elements of a fraud claim: (1) a misrepresentation, suppression, or 

omission of true information; (2) the intent to obtain an unjust advantage or 

to cause damage or inconvenience to another; and (3) the error induced by a 

fraudulent act must relate to a circumstance substantially influencing the 

victim’s consent to the contract. Grigsby & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 

294 F. Supp. 3d 529, 544 (W.D. La. 2018). It then held People Source was 

missing an element: “there was no misrepresentation or suppression of the 

Case: 21-30368 Document: 00516447147 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/25/2022
No. 21-30368

5

truth by any of the Defendants that substantially influenced People Source’s 

course of conduct.” Because fraud is the underlying tort for the conspiracy 

claim, and People Source failed to establish an element of fraud, the district 

court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants on the 

conspiracy claim.

Next, People Source argues the district court erred by granting 

summary judgment on its breach-of-fiduciary-duties claims. “The defining 

characteristic of a fiduciary relationship . . . is the special relationship of 

confidence or trust imposed by one in another who undertakes to act 

primarily for the benefit of the principal in a particular endeavor.” Sampson 

v. DCI of Alexandria, 2007-671, p. 7 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/31/07); 970 So. 2d 

55, 60. “An employee owes his employer a duty to be loyal and faithful to the 

employer’s interest and business. . . . However, this duty of allegiance does 

not rise to the level of a fiduciary duty unless the employee is also an agent or 

mandatary of his employer.” Innovative Manpower Sols., LLC v. Ironman 

Staffing, LLC, 929 F. Supp. 2d 597, 609 (W.D. La. 2013). Many employees 

who are not fiduciaries have a lesser duty of fidelity to their employers—that 

duty requires them “not to act in antagonism or opposition to the interest of 

the employer,” Harrison v. CD Consulting, Inc., 2005-1087, p. 6 (La. App. 1 

Cir. 5/5/06); 934 So. 2d 166, 170, but it nonetheless allows an employee to 

prepare to compete with a former employer.

The district court concluded neither Shauna Bradley nor Anna 

Robertson qualified as a fiduciary of People Source and accordingly granted 

summary judgment on these claims. Bradley was “an account manager for 

People Source,” but she did “not have a special duty as an agent or 

mandatary for People Source.” And Robertson was “not an officer, director, 

or owner of People Source” in a “special relationship of confidence or trust,” 

Sampson, 970 So. at 60, so she was “not an agent or mandatary of People 

Source that owed a fiduciary duty.” The district court did not err in 

Case: 21-30368 Document: 00516447147 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/25/2022
No. 21-30368

6

concluding there was no triable issue of fact regarding whether either 

qualified as a fiduciary. And although both Bradley and Robertson may have 

owed a lesser duty of fidelity to People Source, any argument to that effect 

has not been presented and is deemed forfeited.

Finally, People Source argues the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim. The relevant contract 

obligations were set out in the Louisiana Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation 

Agreements (the “Agreement”), which Bradley signed. But Louisiana law

strongly disfavors agreements in restraint of trade. See La. R.S. 23:921(a)(1) 

(“Every contract or agreement, or provision thereof, by which anyone is 

restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, 

except as provided in this section, shall be null and void.”).A non-solicitation 

or non-competition agreement is only valid in Louisiana if three requirements 

are met: (1) a two-year maximum duration, (2) a list of the areas in which the 

former employee is restrained, and (3) competition between the former 

employee and employer. Env’t Safety & Health Consulting Servs., Inc. v. 

Fowler, 2019-0813 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/11/20), writ denied, 202-00729 (La. 

10/6/20); 302 So. 3d 528. The district court correctly applied that law and 

held the Agreement was overbroad and unenforceable. Based on that 

conclusion, the district court was correct to grant summary judgment on the 

breach-of-contract claim, which depended entirely on the enforceability of 

the Agreement.

* * *

We have considered People Source’s other arguments and find them 

unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, and for substantially the same given 

in the district court’s two thorough opinions granting the motions for 

summary judgment, we refuse to disturb the judgment below.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-30368 Document: 00516447147 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/25/2022