Badger Daylighting Corp. v. Palmer, 1:19-cv-02106-SEB-MJD. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20190923802
Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2019
Summary: FootNotes 1. Badger cites two Indiana cases as support for its proposition that the provision is enforceable: Coates v. Heat Wagons, Inc., 942 N.E.2d 905 , 916 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) and Titus v. Rheitone, 758 N.E.2d 85 , 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). However, our Court in Distributor Service explicitly rejected a party's assertion that Coates and Titus stood for this proposition. 16 F. Supp. 3d at 973. The Distributor Service court concluded that Coates "dealt with whether the term
Summary: FootNotes 1. Badger cites two Indiana cases as support for its proposition that the provision is enforceable: Coates v. Heat Wagons, Inc., 942 N.E.2d 905 , 916 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) and Titus v. Rheitone, 758 N.E.2d 85 , 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). However, our Court in Distributor Service explicitly rejected a party's assertion that Coates and Titus stood for this proposition. 16 F. Supp. 3d at 973. The Distributor Service court concluded that Coates "dealt with whether the term `..
More
FootNotes
1. Badger cites two Indiana cases as support for its proposition that the provision is enforceable: Coates v. Heat Wagons, Inc., 942 N.E.2d 905, 916 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) and Titus v. Rheitone, 758 N.E.2d 85, 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). However, our Court in Distributor Service explicitly rejected a party's assertion that Coates and Titus stood for this proposition. 16 F. Supp. 3d at 973. The Distributor Service court concluded that Coates "dealt with whether the term `Employer' in non-compete provision was overly broad, and not with whether provision was unenforceable because it restricted employee from working for new employer in any capacity." Id. The Coates court also noted that a non-compete provision is invalid if it "restrict[s] an employee from working for any competitor of a prior employer in any capacity." 924 N.E.2d at 916. The Distributor Service court stated that the Titus case involved a non-solicitation provision, not a non-competition provision, and thus was distinguishable. 16 F. Supp. 3d at 973. Additionally, Titus was decided before the Gleeson court provided its guidance.
2. Court are permitted to enjoin defendants from working for new employers when there is a risk of misappropriating trade secrets, even if there is not an enforceable covenant not to compete. Toyota Indus. Equip. Mfg., Inc. v. Land, 2014 WL 3670133, at *8 (citing Ackerman v. Kimball Int'l, Inc., 652 N.E.2d at 19. See also U.S. Land Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Surveyor, Inc., 826 N.E.2d at 49 (enjoining defendant because of risk of trade secret misappropriation even though non-compete agreement was unenforceable). The risk of misappropriation also exists regardless of whether the individual's new employer is an already existing direct competitor of his former employer. See U.S. Land Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Surveyor, Inc., 826 N.E. at 59 ("[The former employer] did not intend its client, prospect or surveyor databases, each having substantial value to [the employer], to be available or portable so that employees separating from the company might strip down or take whatever information they might desire to take with them, for the benefit of a new employer, or in starting or assisting a cohort or confidant in immediately establishing an aggressive, substantial competitor to [the former employer]); see also Hydraulic Exchange and Repair v. KM, 690 N.E.2d at 782 (finding risk of misappropriation without determining whether defendant's new employer was a competitor of the former employer").
3. Mr. Palmer does argue that the documents have not been maintained as secret documents because part of one document is available for public viewing on Badger's website [Dkt. 63, at 20]. At the court hearing, counsel for Mr. Palmer conceded that only a portion of the document is publicly available, with the remaining portion secured. Mr. Palmer did not dispute the secrecy of the other documents and conceded in his deposition that at least some of the documents, particularly the strategic planning materials, are not available to the public. [Dkt. 59-3, Exh. 105].
4. Mr. Palmer maintains accurately that costs, pricing, and marketing are "the weakest kinds of trade secrets." Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Lockhart, 5 F.Supp.2d 667, 685 (S.D. Ind. 1998) [Dkt. 63, at 16]. However, he does not address the plethora of other documents that are consistently recognized as trade secrets, including strategic planning materials, customer specifications, and equipment drawings.
Source: Leagle
