OPINION & ORDER Parchem Trading, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) brings this Action against Kristen DePersia (“Defendant”), one of its former employees, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets. (See generally Am. Compl. (Dkt. No. 10); see also Not. of Removal 1 (Dkt. No. 1).) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, now employed by one of Plaintiff’s business competitors, used trade secrets to facilitate sales of chemical products to Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”), who also does business with Plaintiff, and that Defendant misappropriated Plaintiff’s proprietary business information via her personal cellphone. Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 66).) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted. I. Background A. Factual Background The following facts are taken from the Parties’ Rule 56.1 Statements and Counterstatements.1 (See Def.’s 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. (“Def.’s 56.1″); Pl.’s 56.1 Counter Statement to Def.’s 56.1 (“Pl.’s Counter 56.1″); Pl.’s 56.1 Statement in Opp’n to Mot. (“Pl.’s 56.1″); Def.’s Counter Statement to Pl.’s 56.1 (“Def.’s Counter 56.1″); Def.’s Reply 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. (“Def.’s Reply 56.1″) (Dkt. Nos. 69, 80, 87).) Plaintiff is a New York technology sourcing and marketing company in the raw material space that engages in trading and distributing of bulk specialty chemicals. (Pl.’s 56.1 1.)2 Plaintiff does not itself manufacture any of the chemicals it sells, but rather sources them and provides them to various clients who need them for their own businesses. (Def.’s 56.1 18.)3 According to Plaintiff, it best services its customers through a compilation of “proprietary technology,” including “databases, algorithms, and control panels” that contain information concerning “customers, customer preferences, products, suppliers, marketing strategies, and pricing.” (Pl.’s 56.1 2.) The “compilation” of this information is not generally available to the public. (Id.) Plaintiff claims it has spent over eight years and millions of dollars developing its industry knowledge regarding its customer preferences and related data. (Id.
3-5.) Plaintiff uses some security measures to keep this information secret, such as a two-party authentication method with rotating passwords, as well as limiting the availability of some of this information to “certain managers with nested permissions.” (Id.
