178 results for 'nos:"Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights"'.
J. Horan finds that the testimony of an expert witness for the defendant energy services company, who testified as to whether suing energy company took reasonable steps to protect its trade secrets, shall not be removed from the record. The witness’s testimony does not invade the territory of the trier of fact, but rather provides information as to the steps that the sued company could have or did take to protect its trade secrets. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the expert witness’s testimony is denied.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv1981, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Trade Secrets, Experts
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. Jackson grants a request by a Texas-based electrical contractor, finding its Louisiana competitor in civil contempt of a nearly two-year-old court order barring its use of allegedly stolen trade secrets obtained from the litigant’s former employees. The competitor claims it was “blindsided” by its employee’s deposition testimony that he used tools and programs from his ex-employers to build materials for his new bosses. The competitor “may not rely on its supposed ignorance” of its employees' activities to avoid a finding of contempt. The competitor must immediately cease using all replicas of the litigant-contractor's protected information.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: Jackson, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv267, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, Sanctions, Trade Secrets
J. Calabretta grants, in part, R.R. Donnelly and Sons’ motion for contempt against a former employee who deleted certain files and failed to produce his Dropbox account in violation of a preliminary injunction. The worker violation of the order was not done in good faith or through a reasonable understanding of the order.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Calabretta, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv753, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Contempt, Sanctions, Injunction
J. Horan finds that suing energy services firm is not entitled to spoilation of evidence sanctions against the sued energy services company, whose employees destroyed information on their personal cellular phones after the suing firm requested this information for its relevance to the underlying case. The information involved text messages between the two businesses’ employees, and the parties should be able to retrieve the information from its own employees so there is no evidence that the information is no longer accessible.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv1981, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, Sanctions
J. Guzman finds that a company guilty of misappropriation of trade secrets committed misappropriation willfully and maliciously, but does not award exemplary damages even though they would be warranted. Punitive damages have already been awarded, so exemplary damages run the risk of being unfairly duplicative.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Guzman, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 4:21cv10572, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Trade Secrets, Damages, Business Practices
J. Heil adopts the recommendation of the magistrate judge and enters default judgment in favor of the plaintiff company based on the alleged "destruction of evidence" in this lawsuit against a former employee. The employee argues that "sanctions are not warranted" due to a lack of prejudice to the company, but the court disagrees, finding that the company can no longer examine the deleted materials. The matter is returned to the magistrate judge to determine damages and fees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Oklahoma , Judge: Heil, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv525, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, Sanctions, Contract
J. Antoon denies the employee's motion to transfer venue and stay proceedings in the employer's suit against him alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and breaches of his employment contract. The forum-selection clause in the contract was reasonably communicated to the employee and therefore is not invalid for overreaching, nor would enforcement of the clause contravene strong public policies of Florida. While the employee worked for the employer in, and now works for another employer around, Indianapolis, the localized nature of the controversies does not outweigh the forum-selection clause.
Court: USDC Middle District of Florida, Judge: Antoon, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 6:23cv2338, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, Trade Secrets, Venue
J. Africk grants requests by several corporations sued by a Louisiana manufacturer of protective coatings, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction claims they violated nondisclosure agreements in a business partnership to develop railcar coating. The litigant-manufacturer’s complaint does not allege any specific facts that show their previous business partners purposely directed activities at Louisiana, while signing an NDA with a Louisiana business does not establish the minimum contacts required for jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Africk, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv6394, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Corporations, Jurisdiction, Business Practices