LoneStar Does Not Own Trade Secrets Listed in Court Filings
CenTex CBD beat back a claim by LoneStar Farms LLC, better known as Sweet Sensi, and their lawyer, Lisa Pittman, of misappropriation of trade secrets and intellectual property and allegations of unethical conduct. This ruling of Constructive Fraud and other charges against Sweet Sensi will have significant implications for the rapidly growing and changing hemp industry in Texas.
During the case, Greg Autry of Sweet Sensi attacked Wyatt Larew of Wyatt Purp and the Texas Hemp Reporter in an advertisement published in The Austin Chronicle on October 25, 2024. The jury verdict completely vindicated Larew and the Texas Hemp Reporter for its initial coverage of the case.
“Sweet Sensi tried to cover up its bad behavior and questionable business practices by attacking me. I am grateful that the jury ruled in CenTex’s favor and vindicated me. I am disappointed in my former attorney, Lisa Pittman, who took a contradictory position after providing a legal opinion for me. Justice is the winner this week. Also, Hemp businesses in Texas won because bad actors need to be exposed, and ethical standards must be respected,” said Larew.
The conduct of Sweet Sensi’s lawyer, Pittman, has come into question. During the legal process, Pitman moved the case to District court from small claims court, which allowed Sweet Sensi to counter-sue for $250k-1 million in damages. While the trial was progressing, CenTex asked the judge to sanction Pittman. The judge agreed and sanctioned her. Additionally, the judge found it necessary to remind Pittman of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, raising the concern that her actions could be viewed as criminal, not just unethical.
“The Texas Hemp Reporter bases our reporting on court filings and public documents. Factual court reporting does not require commentary for the parties involved to “spin” us with their interpretation of court proceedings,” said Russell Dowden, Publisher of the Texas Hemp Reporter.
In this case, the jury ruled that Sweet Sensi did not own certain trade secrets, which contradicts what Autry of Sweet Sensi said in his paid advertisement.
“In my opinion, the jury did a good job seeing through the thinly veiled arguments presented by Sweet Sensi attempting to misuse trade secrets and the patent process. Hemp businesses must maintain their integrity so we can continue to supply products for the people who need them the most,” said David Sergi, Attorney for Wyatt Purp and other hemp-related businesses.
{What Does the Future of Hemp hold for the Lone Star State? Operators will be more accountable to retailers moving forward.}
In addition to finding Sweet Sensi committed constructive fraud, the jury returned unanimous verdicts, finding that Sweet Sensi engaged in false, misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable actions when the jury answered the following questions.
Did LoneStar engage in any false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice that CenTex relied on to its detriment and that was a producing cause of damages to CenTex? Jury said Yes.
Did LoneStar engage in any unconscionable action or course of action that was a producing cause of damages to CenTex? Jury said Yes.
Did CenTex and LoneStar agree that CenTex’s cherry limeade gumdrops ordered from LoneStar would come with red sugar and contain approximately 15 mg of Delta 8 per gumdrop? Jury said Yes.
Did CenTex and LoneStar agree that LoneStar would provide shelf-ready/consumer-ready gumdrops to CenTex? Jury said Yes.
Did LoneStar fail to comply with its agreement with CenTex, if any? Jury says Yes.
Did CenTex substantially rely to its detriment on LoneStar’s promises), if any, and, if so, was CenTex’s reliance foreseeable by LoneStar? Jury said Yes.
Did LoneStar obtain a benefit from CenTex by fraud or the taking of an undue advantage? Jury said Yes.
Did LoneStar fail to comply with the Manufacturing Service Agreement? Jury said Yes.
Did LoneStar own a trade secret in the formula, pattern, compilation, program, method, technique, process, or list of actual or potential customers listed below?
1. The rosin-based process used to design and manufacture LoneStar’s rosin-based products. Jury said No.
2. The process for designing and manufacturing LoneStar’s rosin base. Jury said No.
3. The process for designing and manufacturing LoneStar’s rosin-based products. Jury said No.
4. The process for designing and manufacturing LoneStar’s vape cartridges and gummy products. Jury said No.
In addition to these findings, LoneStar Farms LLC dba Sweet Sensi must pay monetary damages to CenTex CDB.
Additional steps related to the people and businesses involved in this case will be taken in the coming weeks. We will continue to inform the public about any developments.
For media interviews. Please contact Kevin Lampe at (312) 617-7280 or [email protected].
In a high-stakes legal battle that could shape the future of hemp innovation in Texas, CenTex
CBD, LLC and LoneStar Farms, LLC (operating as Sweet Sensi CBD) are locked in a dispute over
trade secrets, intellectual property, and allegations of unethical conduct. The lawsuit, which
centers on competing claims of misappropriation and breach of trust, has significant
implications for both companies and the rapidly evolving hemp industry in Texas.
How We Got Here?
The conflict between CenTex CBD and Sweet Sensi began after what initially seemed like a
routine business issue. After a year of working together and spending over $50,000 on
products, CenTex CBD received an order of gummies from Sweet Sensi that was not only the
wrong color but also had double the labeled potency. The labeling error, which was Sweet
Sensi’s responsibility, prompted CenTex to reach out about the discrepancy. Instead of
resolving the issue through dialogue, CenTex was met with a Cease and Desist letter sent by
Attorney Lisa Pittman from Pittman Legal the same day, which legally prevented any further
communication with Sweet Sensi directly and, for the first time, accused CenTex CBD of stealing
trade secrets. Cent Tex asserts that Ms. Pittman prevented any kind of reasonable, timely
resolution by not communicating any offers from CenTex CBD to Greg Autry of Sweet
Sensi or even responding to communications from CenTex CBD for multiple weeks. Instead, Ms.
Pittman informed CenTex CBD that she would not communicate with CenTex CBD directly.
Her actions forced CenTex CBD to hire an attorney and take legal action for any resolution at all.
Following this letter, CenTex’s attempts at communication were allegedly ignored by Pittman,
who failed to pass on offers for resolution to Greg Autry, Sweet Sensi’s founder. Following this
letter, CenTex’s attempts at communication were allegedly ignored by Pittman, who failed to
pass on offers for resolution to Greg Autry, Sweet Sensi’s founder. However, the Texas Hemp
Reporter spoke to Adam Gregg, from CenTex CBD, he has confirmed that “no offer was made.”
Pittman’s refusal to engage in meaningful discussions forced CenTex to hire legal counsel and
escalate the matter, transforming a simple business disagreement into a full-scale legal battle
over intellectual property and trade secrets.
Sweet Sensi’s Allegations: Protecting Proprietary Information
At the core of Sweet Sensi’s claims is the accusation that CenTex CBD misappropriated their
proprietary rosin-based production methods to create competing products, including delta-8vape cartridges and rosin-based gumdrops. According to Sweet Sensi, their patent-pending
technology for producing rosin products was shared with CenTex CBD under the terms of Non-
Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). These agreements were intended to protect Sweet Sensi’s
confidential business methods and trade secrets, ensuring that their proprietary knowledge
would not be used without their consent.
Sweet Sensi claims that CenTex CBD breached these agreements by using the confidential
information to develop and market its own rosin-based products. They argue that this
constitutes a clear violation of intellectual property law, as CenTex is now directly competing
with them using the very processes they pioneered. Sweet Sensi asserts that their rosin-based
products represent a significant investment in research and development, and they are seeking
to hold CenTex accountable for what they view as unfair competition.
From Sweet Sensi’s perspective, this case is about protecting the integrity of their business and
ensuring that other companies cannot profit from their innovation without facing legal
consequences. They see CenTex’s actions as a deliberate attempt to undermine their position in
the marketplace by using their proprietary technology without permission.
CenTex CBD’s Defense: Allegations of Overreach and Unfounded Claims
On the other side of the courtroom, CenTex CBD presents a very different narrative. CenTex
contends that Sweet Sensi’s accusations are exaggerated and unsupported by clear evidence.
According to CenTex, their company has always acted with integrity, developing its products
independently without relying on any proprietary information from Sweet Sensi. They view the
lawsuit as an attempt by Sweet Sensi to stifle competition, using intellectual property claims as
a tool to block CenTex from selling its own innovative products.
CenTex argues that Sweet Sensi’s claim to exclusive ownership of rosin-based production
methods is overly broad and legally questionable. They maintain that rosin production is a
widely known technique within the hemp industry, and the methods used by CenTex do not
infringe on any valid trade secrets or intellectual property owned by Sweet Sensi. From
CenTex’s perspective, Sweet Sensi is using the legal system to intimidate a competitor rather
than address a genuine legal dispute.
Moreover, CenTex has pushed back against discovery requests made by Sweet Sensi, which
they argue are excessive and invasive. Sweet Sensi has demanded access to sales figures,
financial records, and advertisements, which they claim are necessary to prove the extent of
the alleged misappropriation. CenTex, however, believes that Sweet Sensi is engaging in a
fishing expedition, asking for information that goes beyond what is relevant to the case and
placing an undue burden on CenTex’s operations.
Discovery Disputes and Allegations of Spoliation
One of the more contentious issues in the lawsuit involves discovery disputes between the two
companies. Sweet Sensi has accused CenTex of failing to provide key documents, including
profit and loss statements and advertisements, which they believe could help prove their claims
of trade secret theft. Furthermore, Sweet Sensi has alleged that CenTex deleted social media
pages and advertisements that could have served as critical evidence in the case, a charge that
has escalated into accusations of spoliation—the deliberate destruction of evidence.
CenTex, for its part, denies these allegations, arguing that any changes to their social media
presence were part of routine business operations and not an attempt to destroy evidence.
They insist that they have complied with discovery requirements to the best of their ability and
that Sweet Sensi’s accusations of spoliation are unfounded.
The Ethical Dispute: Lisa Pittman and Wyatt Larew
The legal battle between the two companies took an unexpected turn with the involvement of
Lisa Pittman, Sweet Sensi’s attorney, and Wyatt Larew, a key expert witness for CenTex CBD.
Larew had previously had an attorney-client relationship with Pittman and later testified that
Pittman made improper contact with him after learning that he had been retained as an expert
witness for CenTex.
According to Larew’s testimony, Pittman called him on June 10, 2024, and tried to dissuade him
from testifying on behalf of CenTex, citing her financial interest in the case and even suggesting
that Larew should prepare for potential legal consequences if he continued in his role as an
expert witness. Larew described the conversation as intimidating and felt that Pittman was
attempting to coerce him into stepping down.
CenTex seized on this testimony, filing a Motion for Sanctions against Pittman for allegedly
violating ethical standards. The court ultimately agreed, ruling that Pittman’s communication
with Larew was a violation of Texas Disciplinary Rule 4.02(b), which governs communication
with represented parties. As a result, the court imposed sanctions, barring Pittman from
deposing or cross-examining Larew during the trial.
Court Rulings and Sanctions – LETTER HERE: 24-080924 ORDER on Motion for Sanctions-1
The court’s decision to sanction Pittman was a significant victory for CenTex, bolstering their
claims that Sweet Sensi’s legal team had engaged in unethical conduct. However, the broader
dispute over the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets remains unresolved, with both sides
continuing to argue their positions as the trial approaches.
While CenTex celebrates the sanctions against Pittman as a validation of their stance, Sweet
Sensi continues to argue that the core issue—the protection of their proprietary
information—has not been fully addressed. Sweet Sensi maintains that CenTex has yet to
account for its alleged misappropriation of rosin-based production methods and that the case is
far from over.
The Stakes for the Hemp Industry
This legal battle between CenTex CBD and Sweet Sensi carries significant implications for the
hemp industry in Texas. Though CenTex may appear to be the David in this scenario—smaller in
size and resources compared to the industry giant Sweet Sensi, the Goliath—the outcome of
this case could set important precedents for how trade secrets and intellectual property are
protected in the rapidly evolving hemp space. As more companies invest in proprietary
production methods, the legal framework around innovation and intellectual property will be
critical in determining how businesses compete.
For CenTex, this case is about defending their right to innovate and compete freely in the
marketplace, without being crushed by unfounded allegations from larger competitors. They
argue that Sweet Sensi is using its size and influence to block CenTex from making a name for
itself in the market. On the other hand, Sweet Sensi sees the lawsuit as a necessary step to
protect their innovations and ensure that competitors do not misuse confidential information
or infringe on their proprietary methods.
As the trial date approaches, the confrontation between these two companies will likely shape
the future of intellectual property disputes in Texas burgeoning cannabis and hemp sector. The
court’s ruling will set a legal precedent, not just for CenTex and Sweet Sensi, but for how
intellectual property protections are enforced across the state’s growing hemp market.
