36. Likewise, when alleging misappropriation, States Mortgage must allege
more than its belief that Defendants Bond and LKN had access to its trade secrets
and now work for a competitor. See Washburn, 190 N.C. App. at 327 (citing
VisionAIR, Inc. v. James, 167 N.C. App. 504, 511 (2004)). Conclusory allegations of
misappropriation are insufficient. See, e.g., Bite Busters, LLC v. Burris, 2021 NCBC
LEXIS 26, at **22–23 (N.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 25, 2021); Washburn, 190 N.C. App. at
327; Strata Solar, LLC, 2020 NCBC LEXIS 129, at **11–12.
37. Defendants Bond and LKN contend that States Mortgage has failed on
each of these fronts. They argue that States Mortgage has not identified the trade
secret with particularity, not alleged facts to show that it protected the secrecy of any
information, and not adequately specified the manner in which the alleged
misappropriation occurred. (Defs.’ Opp. Mot. Amend 11–18.)
38. States Mortgage responds that its Proposed Amended Complaint
adequately identifies the trade secret at issue as an Excel spreadsheet containing a
“list of [all of its] past, present, and future, (sic) customers. . . who are generally
individual residential mortgage borrowers seeking refinances or first loans, including
their current mortgage interest rate, the current outstanding amount owed on their
existing mortgage, the current loan type, the customer’s credit score, phone number
and birthday, the loan status (including whether the application is in process, closed,
withdrawn, or if it had an adverse result), the reason(s) for any loan denial, the initial
annual percentage rate, the advertising campaign that resulted in the customer’s use
of States’ Mortgages (sic) services, the fee earned or to be earned by States Mortgage,