Bioskryb Genomics, Inc. v. Aclarity Genomics Inc.

2025 NCBC 56

• Court: North Carolina Business Court
• Decided: September 18, 2025
• Docket: 25-CVS-424
• Status: Published

Opinion

BioSkryb Genomics, Inc. v. AClarity Genomics Inc., 2025 NCBC 56.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION DURHAM COUNTY 25CV000424-310

BIOSKRYB GENOMICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND OPINION ON ACLARITY GENOMICS INC., and PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE JASON A.A. WEST,

Defendants.

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard L.L.P., by Eric M. David, Kimberly M. Marston, Gabrielle L. Motsinger, and Kasi W. Robinson, for Plaintiff BioSkryb Genomics, Inc.

Ellis & Winters, LLP, by James M. Weiss, Kelly Margolis Dagger, Curtis J. Shipley, and Dale Clemons, for Defendants AClarity Genomics Inc. and Jason A.A. West.

Conrad, Judge.

1. BioSkryb Genomics, Inc. has moved to strike over sixty paragraphs in the

answer and counterclaim of Jason West and AClarity Genomics Inc. (See Mot. Strike,

ECF No. 68.) In its discretion, the Court elects to decide the motion on the briefs.

See BCR 7.4.

2. This case began when BioSkryb sued West and AClarity for unfair

competition. BioSkryb is a technology company; West is a former director and officer;

and AClarity is West’s newly formed company. In a nutshell, BioSkryb alleges that

West took its trade secrets upon his departure and has used them to establish

AClarity as a competitor. These allegations support claims for misappropriation of

trade secrets, unfair or deceptive trade practices under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, breach of the confidentiality and nonsolicitation clauses in West’s employment agreement, and

more. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 105, 106, 115, 130–32, ECF No. 3.)

3. Immediately after filing suit, BioSkryb sought a temporary restraining

order to bar West and AClarity from using its trade secrets and soliciting its

customers and employees. The Court denied that motion and later denied BioSkryb’s

motion for preliminary injunction. (See Order on Mot. TRO, ECF No. 12; Order on

Am. Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 58.)

4. West and AClarity not only dispute the allegations against them but also

contend that BioSkryb has no basis for them. In their answer and counterclaim, West

and AClarity allege that BioSkryb’s claims are frivolous, malicious, and brought in

bad faith, thus entitling them to an award of attorney’s fees under N.C.G.S.

§§ 66-154(d) and 75-16.1. West goes on to claim that his employment agreement is

void under California law and that BioSkryb’s attempt to enforce the agreement’s

nonsolicitation clause is a violation of California Business & Professional Code

§ 16600.5. (See generally Ans. & Countercl., ECF No. 59.)

5. Now, BioSkryb has asked the Court to strike the counterclaim’s paragraphs

4–9 and 12–66 under Rule 12(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. It

contends that these paragraphs are irrelevant to the claimed violation of California

law. Their purpose, according to BioSkryb, is “only to harass and embarrass

BioSkryb, its founder, and its current CEO.” (Br. Supp. Mot. Strike 3, ECF No. 69.)

6. A trial court “may order stricken from any pleading any . . . redundant,

irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Motions to strike “are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.” Daily v.

Mann Media, Inc., 95 N.C. App. 746, 748–49 (1989) (citation and quotation marks

omitted). “Matter should not be stricken unless it has no possible bearing upon the

litigation. If there is any question as to whether an issue may arise, the motion

should be denied.” Shellhorn v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 38 N.C. App. 310, 316 (1978).

7. Having reviewed the sixty or so disputed paragraphs in context, the Court

cannot say that they have no possible bearing upon the litigation. All concern West’s

work history with BioSkryb and his turbulent relationship with its board of directors,

including, among other things, allegations that the board threatened to fire him

multiple times, pressed him to sign a new employment agreement with restrictions

on competition (and became frustrated when he refused), and eventually fabricated

grounds for removing him from his position as an officer. These events tell the story—

from West’s perspective—behind this dispute. They may indeed bear on BioSkryb’s

motives and whether it has proceeded in bad faith or with malice against West and

AClarity. See N.C.G.S. § 66-154(d) (“If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad

faith . . ., the court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party.”);

id. § 75-16.1 (allowing fees when “[t]he party instituting the action knew, or should

have known, the action was frivolous and malicious”). And the alleged attempts to

revise West’s employment agreement may bear on the parties’ competing

understandings of their rights and obligations under the unamended agreement.

8. This is not to say that the counterclaim needed to be as long and as detailed

as it is. “A short and plain statement” is all that the Rules of Civil Procedure require. N.C. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). But pleadings often set the stage—or, as in this case, respond

to the opposing party’s own stage-setting—with background and related history. It

is not necessary to strike this “[m]ere scenery and stage decoration” from pleadings,

absent some prejudice. Paris v. Carolina Portable Aggregates, Inc., 271 N.C. 471, 479

(1967). Here, the counterclaim’s background allegations pose no real prejudice to

BioSkryb.

9. For these reasons, the Court DENIES BioSkryb’s motion to strike. See, e.g.,

JT Russell & Sons, Inc. v. Russell, 2025 NCBC LEXIS 22, at *18–19 (N.C. Super. Ct.

Mar. 4, 2025) (denying motion to strike); Whalen v. Tuttle, 2024 NCBC LEXIS 146,

at *5–6 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 19, 2024) (same); VanFleet v. City of Hickory, 2020

NCBC LEXIS 40, at *5–7 (N.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 30, 2020) (same).

SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of September, 2025.

/s/ Adam M. Conrad Adam M. Conrad Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases