JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Invacare Corporation ("Invacare") moves to modify the preliminary injunction that the Court previously granted against Invacare's former employee, Defendant Michael Nordquist, and Nordquist's current employer, Defendant Ki Mobility.
For the following reasons, the Court
Both Plaintiff Invacare and Defendant Ki Mobility design, manufacture, and sell wheelchairs and specialty assistive seating.
Defendant Nordquist previously worked for Plaintiff Invacare, and now he works for Defendant Ki Mobility.
In order to enforce Invacare's contract with Nordquist and to protect Invacare's confidential information, Plaintiff Invacare sought a preliminary injunction from this Court.
After briefing and a hearing, the Court granted a limited preliminary injunction designed to prevent Nordquist from engaging in unfair competition based on Invacare confidential information or customer relationships, while still allowing him (and by extension, Ki Mobility) to compete with Invacare on fair terms.
Plaintiff Invacare now seeks to expand that injunction's reach based on additional emails that Ki Mobility late provided Invacare in discovery.
"Courts have long held the power to modify injunctions, whether to narrow or broaden them."
Here, Nordquist's newly revealed emails suggest that the Court's previous injunction does not adequately protect Invacare's confidential information. For that reason, the Court will modify the injunction.
The emails and other documents that the parties have presented to the Court generally fall into two buckets. In the first, Nordquist engages in Ki Mobility sales to smaller companies in the assisted-seating market. In the second, Nordquist is involved in Ki Mobility projects outside of the supervisory regional sales role that he earlier testified to. These projects include direct interaction with customers and broader, non-sales Ki Mobility projects, like Ki Mobility's acquisition of Stealth Seating ("Stealth"). The Court finds that although Nordquist's sales to smaller companies are not problematic, his involvement in broader projects is.
Nordquist's Ki Mobility emails involving sales to smaller seating market companies only show Nordquist engaging in normal, permitted competition. There is no allegation or evidence that Nordquist used any Invacare confidential information in these sales.
The previous evidence in this case suggested that Nordquist's knowledge of Invacare confidential pricing was primarily focused on setting prices for new products or setting national, formulary-level pricing.
Further, the Court was aware that these smaller customers existed when it issued the initial preliminary injunction. Obviously, when Invacare's representative estimated that Invacare's three major customers accounted for 70 to 80 percent of the market,
The Court will not enjoin Nordquist's sales activities to smaller customers.
Nordquist's emails also show him engaging in more problematic activities that the Court will enjoin.
First, Nordquist potentially improperly leveraged his Invacare relationships. In one email, Nordquist details a "long conversation" that he had with Alber's director of sales.
These types of interactions, where Nordquist attempts to sell to a person he would have interacted with while at Invacare, improperly leverage Nordquist's Invacare relationships or improperly use Invacare confidential information.
The Court will therefore enjoin Nordquist from interacting with individuals working for customers or potential customers that he interacted with as an Invacare employee, including Invacare affiliated entities.
Second, Nordquist has been involved with projects seemingly outside of the regional sales director role that he described to the Court.
Plaintiff Invacare points to Nordquist's role in Ki Mobility's acquisition of Stealth.
While at Invacare, Nordquist attended and participated in meetings where Invacare's company-wide strategy and future plans were discussed.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff Invacare that Nordquist's involvement in these types of Ki Mobility non-sales, company-wide projects poses a sufficiently high risk to Invacare's confidential information that it should be enjoined.
The Court modifies the terms of the injunction as follows:
For those reasons, the Court
IT IS SO ORDERED.