An inevitable disclosure case recently filed in federal court in Pennsylvania. To prevent disclosure of its trade secrets, Bimbo Bakeries asked a judge to keep the former manager from working for a competitor. Although, he had not even signed a noncompete.
Conceptually, there is something disturbing about creating a rule out of thin air that an employer loading its information onto…
The doctrine of inevitable disclosure represents another phase in the evolution of the common law’s permissive attitude toward covenants not to compete, since the doctrine permits a court to prohibit an employee from competing with his former employer even in the absence of any contract.
E-discovery is the new trend in litigation; it is here to stay. Every lawsuit involves discovery, now, because many documents exist in electronic form on computer hard drives, electronic files are also subjects for discovery.
In Carolina Chemical Equipment Company v. Muckenfuss, 322 S.C. 289, 471 S.E.2d 721 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996), the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that when a broad trade secret provision “basically has the effect of a covenant to to compete, [the Court] must subject it to the same scrutiny as a covenant not to compete.” Although the South Carolina legislature attempted to limit the holding of Muckenfuss the following year, the case remains important for several reasons: It began the difficult task of culling “trade secrets” from general business information as well as because it did so in the defense of an employee’s right to work.
You got to love the name Muckenfuss, as in the South Carolina Court of Appeals’ opinion in Carolina Chemical Equipment…
South Carolina’s unemployment rate has hit 9.5%, and all indications are that it will continue to rise. And as hard…