Enforcing Restrictive Covenants in a Multistate Business Labor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

37 Offices in 18 Countries

Enforcing Restrictive Covenants in a Multistate Business

Labor & Employment Educational Webinar Series

Susan M. DiMickele, Partner Squire Sanders (US) LLP Labor & Employment Susan.DiMickele@squiresanders.com +1.614.365.2842 Jeffrey J. Wedel, Partner Squire Sanders (US) LLP Labor & Employment Jeffrey.Wedel@squiresanders.com +1.216.479.8767 Ryan A. Sobel, Senior Associate Squire Sanders (US) LLP Labor & Employment Ryan.Sobel@squiresanders.com +1.216.479.8489

2

Before Litigation: Get Your Ducks in a Row

This litigation can be Pandora’s Box

• Avoid knee-jerk reactions
• Not all departing employees may be in violation
• Evaluate the situation based on upon real harm to business
• Presumably non-competes are used strategically, not for everyone
• If you elect to proceed, consider the following…
• First: Stop the bleeding as much as you can
• Secure/limit access to employee’s company-issued electronic devices,

networks, email

• If a current employee, put on administrative leave while investigating

what s/he’s been doing – strict admonition of no customer/employee contact

• Get people in place to secure customer relationships

3

Get Your Ducks in a Row cont.

• Second: Find out what is really going on
• Identify your issues (trade secrets, non-compete, etc.), and identify

supporting facts (copied files, solicitation of customers, etc.)

• If you have to go to the Court, you’ll want to “show,” not “tell”

– Judge may view employee at a disadvantage, and injunctive relief as

extraordinary—you want compelling evidence, not argument

– A TRO can set the tone for the rest of litigation—it’s a must-win

• Consider utilizing a computer forensics company, and quickly

– What are you dealing with? What’s been taken, who’s/what’s at risk? – Is there a smoking gun? – Minimizes/eliminates the need for customer involvement

» Involving a customer in litigation can negatively impact the relationship—the more evidence you can obtain, the less the need to involve customers directly

– Internal IT vs. External Forensic Specialists

» The latter are more expensive, but tend to be more sophisticated and capable— it might be worth the investment

4

Get Your Ducks in a Row cont.

• Third: Weigh your options – is litigation the right course?
• Litigation ramps up quickly and is costly—you’re put to your proofs

within weeks—so determine the right course before you set out

• Litigation can have unintended consequences

– Negatively impact customer relationships – Negatively impact standing within industry, with customers or partners – Invalidation of a non-compete can impact multiple employees – Ties up personnel and resources, impacts business operations – This is as much a business decision as it is a legal decision

• On the other hand…

– Failure to act to protect trade secrets or enforce non-competes can

undercut legal basis for future protection

– Employees may take notice that a coworker’s activities went unchallenged

5

Get Your Ducks in a Row cont.

• Embark on litigation for the right reasons, not as a bullying tool

– Are you really harmed by an employee’s departure? – If s/he was a marginal employee, what makes you think s/he’ll be a threat

with a competitor?

• Are there alternatives to litigation that can protect your interests?

– Cease and desist letter

» Pros – Could avoid expensive litigation if new employer wasn’t aware of restrictive covenant – Opens a dialogue to resolution – Sets up tortious interference claim – Puts employee/new employer on notice to preserve discovery » Cons – “Pound salt” response more likely – Could trigger a race to the courthouse for a declaratory judgment action in a different forum – impact forum selection clause – Potential for tortious interference claim, public policy violation in certain jurisdictions

– Negotiated resolution

6

Bringing Suit: Fast & Furious

Enforcement litigation overview:

• 1. Temporary Restraining Order
• 2. Expedited Discovery
• 3. Preliminary Injunction
• 4. Additional Discovery
• 5. Permanent Injunction/Damages

The TRO is a must-win:

• If you can’t get an ex parte TRO, how likely are you to get a

preliminary injunction in the face of opposition?

• Sets the tone for litigation/settlement discussions

The real battles are the TRO/preliminary injunction:

• Not likely to win permanent injunction otherwise
• Outcome of TRO/preliminary injunction hearing drives potential

resolution

• Can occur within two weeks of one another

7

Filing Suit

Forum: Choose wisely…

• File suit in the most favorable forum that bears a

relationship to the employment or activity

• Use choice-of-law/forum-selection provisions where

possible, but…

• Forum selection clause unenforceable if the product of
• verreaching, if against public policy, or if unreasonable or
• verly burdensome
• Choice-of-law provision unenforceable if chosen state lacks

substantial relationship, or application of its law is contrary to state with materially greater interest

• Courts can reach different conclusions as to enforceability on

similar facts

• Wrong forum in state court can result in dismissal—in federal

court you will simply get transferred

• You can find yourself in a jurisdiction you didn’t intend

8

Filing Suit cont.

Forum: Choose wisely (cont.)…

• Avoid California at all costs
• Non-competes/non-solicitations are unenforceable

– Cal. Business and Professions Code Sec. 16600 – Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008)

• Can’t restrain competition/solicitation to protect

misappropriated trade secrets

– The Retirement Group, Inc. v. Galante, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1226 (2009) – You can get an injunction to prevent further use of trade secrets

• Can face liability if efforts to implement or enforce

result in employee’s job loss

– D’Sa v. Playhut, Inc., 85 Cal. App. 4th 927 (2000)

• Choice-of-law/forum-selection provisions are

unenforceable

9

Filing Suit cont.

Forum: Choose wisely… (cont.)

• Know your state…
• Some states regulate this area by statute, others by common law–

stay on top of recent changes…

– New Hampshire: New law (HB 1270) effective July 14, 2012, makes non-

compete/non-piracy agreements unenforceable if not presented to employee before or at time of offer or change in position.

– Georgia: New law (O.C.G.A. § 13-8-51 et seq.) effective May 11, 2011,

makes restrictive covenants enforceable if reasonable.

– Texas: Supreme court ruling makes enforcement under Tex. Bus. & Com.

Code § 15.50(a) easier, by expanding scope of acceptable consideration. Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 SW 3d 764 (Tex. 2011).

– Update choice-of-law/forum agreements, and support with consideration

• Is it a “blue pencil” state?
• Be aware of your potential bench
• Ohio is generally a favorable forum
• Restrictive covenants are enforceable if reasonable
• Blue pencil state

10

Filing Suit cont.

Other considerations:

• Go after the new employer?
• Tortious interference

– Business relationships – Employment relationship – Contractual relationship

• Anti-trust/fair competition claims
• Pros

– Protect interests/relationships as much as possible – “Deep pocket” if there’s a case for money damages – Party to injunction rather than simply on notice – Discovery easier to obtain against a party

11

Filing Suit cont.

Other considerations cont.:

• Cons

– May not have come to employee’s defense but for

being sued

– Brings additional resources into fight – Added expense – Is there jurisdiction? – Draw customers into dispute? – Negative consequences within business

community?

• Criminal issues?
• Be careful: can’t use threat of criminal prosecution

as leverage in civil litigation

12

Enforcement Procedure

Federal Civil Rule 65:

• TRO (may be ex parte)
• Verified Complaint or Affidavit

– Include separate motion or application – Also include: » Proposed TRO stating reasons, terms, activity restrained » Motion for appointment of special process server » Motion for expedited discovery

• Reasonable effort to notify defendant or counsel
• Effective for 14 days, unless extended by Court for

another 14 days, or for longer time with defendant’s consent

• May be dissolved upon defendant’s motion and 2-days’

notice

13

Enforcement Procedure

Federal Civil Rule 65 cont.

• Preliminary Injunction
• Must be upon motion (serve with TRO application) and hearing
• Requires notice to adverse party prior to hearing
• Opportunity for expedited discovery prior to hearing
• Hearing is a mini-trial which must be held at earliest possible time
• Permanent Injunction
• Adjudicated as a trial after full discovery
• Adjudicated with any claims for money damages
• Most states have similar procedure, with some time differences
• E.g., Ohio follows federal rule (Ohio Civ. R. 65); California: court must

hold preliminary injunction hearing within 15 days of TRO, or 22 days if for good cause (Code Civ. Pro. 527)

• Check your forum’s civil and local rules!!! Courts are sticklers on

TRO/preliminary injunction rules.

14

Discovery

Move for expedited discovery

• Ask for:
• Depositions on short notice
• Shortened response times for written discovery
• Have discovery prepared and served simultaneously
• Include proposed order
• Serve with the TRO

Choose appropriate methods for expedited discovery

• Document requests and depositions
• Possibly requests for admissions and subpoenas
• Be cognizant of out-of-state subpoena procedures—can be time-

consuming and no way to expedite, so get the ball rolling

• Interrogatories may be a waste of time

15

Discovery cont.

Electronic/forensic discovery

• Worth the $ – even the CIA Director is careless with email
• Can retrieve “deleted” files, email (including web-based)
• Can determine what has been copied or downloaded
• Can detect other suspicious activities or patterns
• Can avoid entangling customers directly
• Get a reputable/experienced computer forensic service
• Your internal IT person may not have the tools or knowledge to find

what you need

• Need a quick turnaround
• May need to be a witness, so experience counts
• Target your forensics
• Personal laptop, desktop, tablet, and smart phone
• External flash drives, hard drives, and other media storage devices

16

Proving Your Case

Basic elements of proof

• Substantial likelihood of success on merits
• Irreparable injury
• No unjustifiable third-party harm
• Serves public interest
• Translation: get evidence of solicitation or misappropriation
• Resist temptation to be as broad as possible – focus on actual
• r threatened harm

– S/he “might” be soliciting or using trade secrets not

compelling enough

– Courts skeptical of the “inevitable disclosure” theory

17

Proving Your Case

• Courts are skeptical of broad geographic restrictions based on

“global economy” – focus on established customer relationships involving employee or actual sales territory

– “While the Court appreciates that a national or even international covenant

might be possible given the global economy, the lack of any geographic restriction whatsoever must be highly scrutinized because it has the effect

• f entirely prohibiting an employee from earning a living in the industry in

which the employee is experienced.” Chart Indus. v. Spagnoletti, No. 1:12 CV 2354, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140102 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2012)

Specific proofs

• Efforts to cultivate/protect relationships and trade secrets
• Time/expense, internal policies and procedures, etc.
• Defendant’s access to customers or trade secrets
• Direct or circumstantial evidence of breaching activities
• How this is going to hurt your business

18

Proving Your Case cont.

Some categories of witnesses…

• Company representative
• Witnesses who can establish efforts to protect information
• Witness to activities
• Defendant and any co-conspirators
• IT/Computer Forensics expert
• Valuation expert (if seeking money damages)
• Trade secrets and customer relationships
• Goodwill
• Note: tread carefully—an ability to monetize damages can cut against

the need for injunctive relief

• Customers (???)
• This can blow-up in your face very easily

19

So You Won—Now What?

If settling, push for consent decree/order

• Enforcement remedy is contempt rather than action for breach
• Have judge retain jurisdiction over enforcement

Enforcing orders in other jurisdictions

• Full Faith & Credit clause generally requires states to honor one

another’s orders

• Article IV, Sec. 1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public

Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

• Technically, California must honor injunctive order issued by another

state, unless: (1) jurisdictional defect of sister state; (2) pending appeal in sister state; (3) stay of enforcement by sister state; (4) obtained by fraud; (5) judgment satisfied; or (6) motion to vacate in sister state. (Code of Civil Procedure 1913)

• Don’t be surprised if California judge refuses enforcement anyway
• Most states require commencing original action to enforce judgment of

sister state – check your forum’s statutes/rules

20

So You Won—Now What? cont.

Global enforcement issues

• Most states have mechanism for seeking enforcement of foreign
• rders, but enforcement not guaranteed
• European laws can both help and hinder efforts at enforcement
• f U.S. orders overseas

What if enjoined activity continues?

• “Motion to Show Cause” why defendant should not be held in

contempt

• File in the former case with the judge who had presided over it

– Include affidavit and documentary evidence

• Judges do not like their orders being disobeyed – you likely will get a swift

hearing

• Do not waste time seeking another injunction
• You already have one – don’t cede that point
• Opens up possibility that judge will deny it – crazier things have happened
• Motion to Show Cause protects your interests and places burden on defendant

21

Questions?

Susan M. DiMickele, Partner Squire Sanders (US) LLP Labor & Employment Susan.DiMickele@squiresanders.com +1.614.365.2842 Jeffrey J. Wedel, Partner Squire Sanders (US) LLP Labor & Employment Jeffrey.Wedel@squiresanders.com +1.216.479.8767 Ryan A. Sobel, Senior Associate Squire Sanders (US) LLP Labor & Employment Ryan.Sobel@squiresanders.com +1.216.479.8489

22

Credit Information

• For those you who require CLE, HRCI or CPD please note

the following states have been approved, California and Ohio; as well as Arizona, New York, and New Jersey through state reciprocity rules. If you require credit in a jurisdiction not pre-approved we can still apply to get you credit.

• Please complete the online affidavit included in the webinar

reminder sent to everyone yesterday. An additional copy of the affidavit will also be emailed in a follow up communication tomorrow.

• Don’t forget to include the affirmation code on the form.

Once completed, PDF a copy of the signed form to Robin Hallagan at robin.hallagan@squiresanders.com Remember to complete the webinar survey immediately following the end of this presentation. You are required to complete this evaluation before receiving a certificate of attendance.