8 results for 'cat:"Evidence" AND cat:"Trade Secrets"'.
J. Currault grants a request by an education technology company that provides classroom audio and camera systems, ordering a software development company to supplement its responses to more specifically identify the trade secrets that the technology company has allegedly stolen. A recently enacted rule requires a statement of a greater degree of particularity than the categories within which the trade secret information may fall, such as that set forth in the publicly available complaint, and more than simple generalized descriptions.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Currault, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv2862, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, evidence, trade Secrets
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Lasnik dismisses the cosmetics company's claim that the former salesperson allegedly shared a screenshot of a private company-related conversation with another affiliate, and that her alleged actions led to 5,500 employees quitting. There is no evidence that the former salesperson disclosed or otherwise used the cosmetics company's trade secrets. Even if she did, there is no evidence that her alleged actions led to the mass employee exit, as some left due to their friends being fired, some because the cosmetics company unilaterally changed its affiliate compensation plan, and others left before the former salesperson's alleged breach.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lasnik, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv145, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: evidence, trade Secrets, Contract
J. Denney finds in favor of the indoor agricultural business in this trade secret dispute arising from the sale of membership interest in its subsidiary. Despite testimony that the subsidiary's client email list was “gold,” it was not referenced in the purchase agreement. No one at the subsidiary communicated that the list was not to be accessed or utilized by the ag business. The subsidiary also made no effort to safeguard the secrecy of the information.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Denney, Filed On: May 30, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv73, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: evidence, trade Secrets, Contract