Question

FACTS: Sarah Montieth was an employee of Garon Foods from November 2011, until she voluntarily resigned in February 2013. Garon sells peppers to cheese manufacturers for use in making pepper jack cheese. Garon acts as a distributor for peppers it obtains from a supplier that Garon relabels and distributes to its pepper jack cheese manufacturing customers under Garon's name. During her time at Garon, she had access to a computer program listing the names of Garon's customers, and she was assigned to manage the accounts of a small number of customers (around five at any one time). Prior to starting employment, Sarah signed a “Garon Trade Secrets Confidentiality Agreement” in which she agreed to hold Garon's trade secrets confidential and to refrain from using them for anything other than Garon's benefit. Under the Agreement, trade secrets included customer lists, customer products, customer pricing, data, designs, financial records, formula, packaging, procedures, processes, suppliers, vendors, and other confidential information. Garon further protected some of this information on a computer system with individual passwords and by hiding it on its computer server. At the time of her resignation, Sarah signed another document in which she acknowledged the Agreement's non-disclosure provisions. Garon never asked Sarah to sign a covenant not to compete with Garon. During Sarah's employment with Garon, she sent an e-mail with some of the foregoing confidential information to her personal e-mail account. She did this for the purpose of preparing for a meeting to address a customer complaint that had arisen while others at Garon were away on vacation. On one occasion, Sarah also sent a purchase order containing confidential information to a trucking company to facilitate an urgent transportation request. When Sarah resigned, she was escorted from Garon's property and took no documents with her. She did retain in her memory the names of purchasing agents of certain Garon customers and general knowledge of the industry, such as “ballpark” pricing arrangements. Any specific pricing details Sarah retained in her memory are likely to be obsolete within a year or less due to the fluctuation of product prices. After Sarah's resignation, she began working as an independent contractor for the Supplier of peppers to Garon. This was the Supplier's first attempt to market its product directly to cheese manufacturers. No credible evidence shows Sarah gave the Supplier any of Garon's confidential information or trade secrets. However, Garon alleges Sarah breached the Agreement when she began marketing the Supplier's products directly to pepper jack cheese manufacturers, which included Garon's customers. Sarah sent mass e-mails to the purchasing agents of the companies on a list of pepper jack cheese manufacturers. She had not obtained the manufacturer list from Garon, but derived it on her own through internet searches. She had remembered some of the purchasing agents' names from her work at Garon, but had obtained others, along with contact information, through telephone calls to the manufacturers. She did not specifically target any of Garon's customers with her e-mail solicitations, but she did not avoid them either. However, some of the mass e-mails contained references from which the manufacturer could easily conclude that the Supplier was Garon's source of the products Garon sold under its own name. For example, one mass e-mail offered to sell the Supplier's product to manufacturers using standard packaging methods (pails, drums, and totes) “at significant cost savings and with shorter lead times” than the manufacturer could get through a distributor. The e-mail further contained a specification sheet for a product that this customer had purchased from Garon. Despite receiving a cease and desist letter from Garon's counsel, Sarah continues to solicit business for the Supplier. Sarah has not brought any new customers to the Supplier since her marketing efforts began, but Garon has lost one long-time customer who generated more than $200,000 of business a year. If the Supplier is able to draw customers away from Garon, Garon's reputation in the industry would suffer and it would be nearly impossible to get its customers back. Additionally, since Sarah began working for the Supplier, the Supplier has increased the product prices it charges Garon, which Garon has been forced to pass along to its customers. Garon filed suit alleging Sarah breached the Agreement by revealing confidential information and violated the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (“ITSA”), by misappropriating Garon's trade secrets. Garon asked the Court to issue a preliminary injunction barring Sarah from using or disclosing Garon's confidential information or trade secrets, ordering her to return all confidential information or trade secrets within her possession, and ordering her to disclose everyone to whom she provided Garon's confidential information or trade secrets and all the customers she has contacted since leaving Garon. ISSUES: Did Sarah breach her agreement not to disclose? Did she reveal trade secrets? Was Garon entitled to an injunction? DECISION: The court found that Sarah had violated the agreement through certain of her actions and that she had revealed some information that constituted trade secrets. However, an agreement to not disclose is still a covenant not to compete and balancing in required between Garon’s rights and Sarah’s ability to earn a living. The court, therefore, issues a tailored injunction that spelled out what Sarah could and could not do for the next eight months. Sarah is enjoined from soliciting business for the Supplier from any cheese manufacturer whose account she was assigned to manage during the twelve months before she stopped working for Garon. This injunction shall last for eight months following the entry of this preliminary injunction. This preliminary injunction does not prevent Sarah from servicing any of these cheese manufacturers who independently become customers of the Supplier by means other than her solicitations. Sarah is enjoined from soliciting business for the Supplier from any cheese manufacturer she knows is or was a Garon customer by mentioning or using any specific information in the solicitation about their past purchasing needs or sales terms. This restriction includes mentioning in the solicitation the specifications of the products she knows from her experience at Garon were sold to that cheese manufacturer by Garon. This preliminary injunction does not prevent Sarah from responding to a cheese manufacturer's request for products that it has purchased from Garon so long as the request for those products is initiated by the cheese manufacturer. Sarah is enjoined from referring in her solicitations to (1) Garon or (2) any other information from which a cheese manufacturer is likely to draw the conclusion that the Supplier provides Garon with the products Garon sells under its name. This restriction includes, but is not limited to, mentioning in the solicitation the specific weights of products in conjunction with the method of packaging that was sold exclusively by Garon (e.g., 43–pound pails) and inviting the cheese manufacturer to compare the quality audit documentation of Garon and the Supplier. This preliminary injunction does not prohibit Sarah from responding to a cheese manufacturer's request for products packaged in the specific weights and methods sold by Garon or for a list of the packaging weights and methods available from the Supplier, so long as the request is initiated by the cheese manufacturer. Questions 1. What kind of information does Sarah have that could harm Garon? 2. What type of business was Sarah attempting to create? 3. What restrictions does the court impose?

Answer 1

Answer:-

1)

During Sarah's work with Garon, she sent an email with a portion of the prior secret data to her own email account. Sarah additionally sent a buy request containing classified data to a trucking organization to encourage an earnest transportation demand.

She retained in her memory the names of buying specialists of certain Garon clients and general information on the business, for example, "ballpark" estimating courses of action.

Additionally has data about specific clients from Garon'scustomer organize that could be useful to the Supplier Sarah works for. This is probably going to make harm the productivity also the notoriety of Garon in the business.

2)

Sarah was attempting to make an expert notoriety with the Supplier and rivalry for the Supplier with Garon, incompletely with her work understanding and in part with private information that she held while working for Garon.

3)

The court limits that Sarah won't have the option to request business for the provider from any of the clients.

She was doled out to while working for Garon for the following eight months following the starter directive.

The court further limits her from requesting business for the Suppliers from any client who is known to be is or was a client of Garonusing a particular data in the sales about their past buying needs or deals terms

This limitation additionally incorporates her insight about the item particulars she is aware of has been offered to the clients by Garon. Moreover, the court limits her from alluding to in her requesting either Garon or any data that is probably going to reach an inference about theSupplier she works for likewise supplies items to Garon that it sells under its image name.

This incorporates the strategy for bundling, weight determinations and welcoming the cheddar fabricates to analyze the nature of the result of Garon and the Supplier.

please like the answer..........