Orrville-based JM Smucker suing former scientist for allegedly stealing Uncrustables secrets

ORRVILLE, Ohio — Orrville-based J.M. Smucker has filed a federal lawsuit against one of its former scientists alleging that he kept several company laptops after his firing and downloaded “hundreds of confidential and sensitive files to external USB storage drives.”

The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Ohio’s Eastern Division, claims that former senior scientist Paul-Yvann Djamen “improperly copied, transferred, and retained Smucker’s confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets from Smucker’s computer laptops and systems and now, refuses to return and destroy the confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets he stole.”

Smucker says much of the data that Djamen copied are related to its popular Uncrustables products.

As a result, Smucker says the company’s trade secrets are at risk of helping a competitor to develop products “that could directly compete with Smucker’s industry-leading products.”

The lawsuit indicates that Smucker hired Djamen in April of 2024 to work in the company’s research and development division, plus various other strategic business areas. He also apparently signed a non-disclosure and invention assignment agreement upon the start of his employment.

However, by early 2025, Smucker says Djamen’s “performance declined,” adding that he “failed to complete assigned work in a timely and accurate manner” among other issues. Djamen received a “2” out of a possible “5” rating at the end of the 2025 fiscal year, leading to him being put on a 90-day performance improvement plan. Smucker says despite being given support and time to improve, Djamen’s work “significantly worsened” and he was fired on Sept. 18, 2025 — 60 days into his 90-day program.

Despite “written and verbal demands,” Smucker alleges that Djamen failed to return his three laptop computers upon his firing.

In October, Smucker reports that its information services team learned that Djamen forwarded more than 1,900 emails from his company email inbox to his personal email address. The company notes that Djamen’s personal email contained a yahoo.fr domain, indicating that the account was associated with Yahoo’s French domain and “may be accessed from a French IP address, suggesting potential cross-border data transfer.”

According to Smucker, two of the three laptops were returned in November, prompting an investigation that determined that Djamen “accessed Smucker’s Computer Systems and Laptops and copied, transferred, or downloaded hundreds of confidential and proprietary information and sensitive files, using external USB devices.”

Last month, Smucker says an attorney contacted the company on behalf of Djamen and the final laptop was sent back.

“Between January 21, 2026 and February 4, 2026, through counsel, Defendant impressed upon Smucker that he would return all USBs/external hard drives and other storage media containing Smucker’s confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets,” the lawsuit stated. “Nonetheless, Defendant failed to do so. Instead, Defendant delayed, stalled, and otherwise avoided compliance, while retaining possession, custody, and control of the USBs/external drives and the information contained on them.”

Two days later, Djamen sent a letter to the company. 

First, he said he was never represented by the attorney that had been communicating with Smucker. Then, Djamen sought to defend himself. Read some of his responses below:

“Your letter states that I deliberately failed to return company laptops and/or other property. That is not true. Once JMS provided me with the instructions and the boxes for returning the laptops, I did send the laptops back on 11/05/2025. Your letter confirms that you received the laptops on 11/06/2025. Regarding any emails that were downloaded or forwarded, none of those emails are confidential or proprietary information, as defined in the NDA.

“Therefore, since the only information that I accessed was my own emails and information relating to my own employment in the context of reviewing and responding to the severance agreement that had initially been offered to me, I did not breach any obligation or break any laws. Frankly, I don’t see how emails to me and from me that show how I was treated by fellow employees or that involved requests for accommodation, would be confidential.

“As my former employer is very aware of, I have been dealing with several health issues as a result of the hostile environment that I was subject to while employed at Smucker. I had quite a bit on my plate with my own health issues and also family matters that required me to travel and because of that, I completely forgot that I had a laptop that was given to me two years prior at the start of my employment. Because it was not a device that I had been using when I was unfairly terminated and because Smucker did not mention that older device, I forgot that I even had it until I was notified that there was still an outstanding device. Once I realized that I was still in possession of that laptop, I immediately sent it back. It was received by Smucker on Wednesday January 21st . There was no ill will, malice, or deliberateness involved. It was simply an oversight.

“With respect to the external drives you mention, I am happy to return anything that might still be in my possession. Please note that these are drives that contain my personal information and so I would need to remove that personal information (e.g. things like personal photos, personal emails, correspondence with attorneys regarding the severance agreement) before sending them to you.”

As of the time of the filing of the lawsuit on Thursday, Smucker says Djamen has failed to return “any USB devices used to access the company’s confidential information and trade secrets, and any other documents or information belonging to Smucker that he has retained.”

The company seeks an injunction requiring the return of any external drives and documents containing Smucker’s confidential trade secrets. In addition, Smucker seeks the destruction of any material that was developed with using its information.

Smucker also seeks compensation for lost profits, plus the awarding of damages.

“A peanut butter and jelly sandwich may seem simple, but achieving the Smucker standard is no ‘spread-and-go’ task. It requires specialized scientific and technical expertise, along with confidential and proprietary information that Smucker has developed and safeguarded over decades. From precise bread proofing, oven temperatures, cooling processes, depositing techniques, and filling ratios to the confidential manufacturing processes and equipment configurations, this confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets ensure consistent quality, safety, and the distinctive characteristics that define Smucker’s Uncrustables® handheld sandwiches,” the company stated in its lawsuit.