Trade Secrets Lawyers & Attorneys : Seyfarth Shaw Law Firm : Computer Fraud, Confidentiality Agreements, Corporate Espionage

 By James McNairy & Robert Milligan

A new Ninth Circuit case, Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon, 2008 WL 4138181 (Sept. 9, 2008), acknowledges (at least in dicta) that there is a trade secrets exception to Business and Professions Code Section 16600.

In the case, Gagnon, an independent contractor who developed computer programs for AMS, a field marketing organization, alleged, among other things that AMS had misappropriated his trade secrets that were contained in the programs’ source code.

The Ninth Circuit rejected Gagnon’s claims that AMS misappropriated his trade secrets.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that Gagnon had granted AMS an implied, unlimited license to retain, use, and modify the software, thus destroying any trade secret status the code might have had.

In rejecting Gagnon’s trade secret claim, the Court affirmed the district court’s holding that the noncompetition agreements signed by Gagnon’s employees were invalid. Gagnon contended that even if AMS obtained an implied license, it still misappropriated his trade secrets that were contained in the programs’ source code by hiring away his employees in violation of their employment agreements. One of the provisions in the employees’ agreements was an agreement not to engage in any employment or personal contractual agreement for AMS for twenty-four months without written consent from Gagnon.

Citing the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d. 285, 288 (2008), the Ninth Circuit stated (arguably in dicta) that noncompetition agreements in California are invalid unless necessary to protect an employer’s trade secrets. The California Supreme Court in Edwards, however, specifically did not address what it called the so-called trade secret exception to Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 and rejected the Ninth Circuit’s narrow restraint exception to section 16600 (the “narrow restraint” exception interpreted section 16600 to allow noncompetition agreements where departing employees were barred from pursuing only a small or limited part of a business, trade or profession). According to the Ninth Circuit, the non-competition agreements that Gagnon had his employees execute “were no longer enforceable” because they were no longer necessary to protect Gagnon’s trade secrets against AMS.

In this first post-Edwards published Ninth Circuit decision regarding section 16600, the Court did not provide any specific analysis concerning the nature of the trade secrets exception and what one must show to make defensible use of it. The Court’s dicta appears to suggest that non-competition agreements executed “to protect” an employer’s trade secrets will be enforceable. But as with most things legal, with trade secrets, the devil is in the details. What exactly the Court meant by a non-competition agreement to protect trade secrets is unclear. Further, mere assertions in employee/employer noncompetition agreements that the agreement has been executed “to protect” trade secrets without more is unlikely to withstand challenge.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 In Contemporary Services Corp. v. Hartman, 2008 WL 3049891 (C.D. Cal.), the United States District Court for the Central District of California recently declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims removed to the court where federal jurisdiction was based solely on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Finding that state issues substantially predominated, the court noted that the “[e]lements and facts that Plaintiffs must prove to establish their CFAA claim are different from what they must prove to establish their other claims.”   

 The court retained jurisdiction over the CFAA claim and remanded all of the state law claims.

Plaintiffs filed suit in state court against defendant Hartman, asserting seven claims for relief: (1) violation of the CFAA; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Conversion; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Fraud; (6) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and (7) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.   Defendant removed the case to federal district court.  Defendant moved to remand the case to state court.  Defendant also moved to dismiss several of plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in which they abandoned their sixth and seventh causes of action. Defendant answered and filed five counterclaims arising under state law for: (1) Unpaid Wages; (2) Waiting Time Penalties; (3) Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802; (4) Indemnification under Cal. Lab Code § 2802 and Cal. Corp. Code § 317; and (5) Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Turning to plaintiffs’ motion for remand, the district court held that “[i]n all important respects, this action involves an employment dispute between the parties that has given rise to nine state law claims and counterclaims which substantially predominate over the sole federal claim.” Continuing, the court noted that all of the claims and counterclaims derived from the facts triggered by defendant's decision to leave plaintiffs' employment, including that defendant allegedly breached her fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs by deleting work product stored on her work computer and defrauding plaintiffs by making false representations about the information contained on plaintiffs' shared drive and computer. 

Defendant's counterclaims for unpaid wages and unfair competition arose from Plaintiffs' alleged conduct after defendant ended her employment.   

Distinguishing the CFAA from the other claims in suit, the court noted “[T]he elements and facts that Plaintiffs must prove to establish their CFAA claim are different from what they must prove to establish their other claims.” Plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract derive from the parties' rights and responsibilities under the employment contract. Plaintiffs' claim for fraud arises from Defendant's alleged misrepresentations during her employment. Defendant's counterclaims for unpaid wages and indemnification were based on Plaintiffs' conduct after defendant returned the computer and left their employment.

In contrast, to prove a CFAA claim, one must show that the computer in question was a “protected computer,” and that the conduct involved one of five categories of harm that are a necessary element of a civil action under the CFAA. As plaintiffs did here, claimants most often meet the “harm” element by alleging a loss of at least $5,000 in value. When relying on this element, under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B), plaintiffs are limited to economic damages.

Finally, the court found it “[n]oteworthy that the relief Plaintiffs seek under the CFAA is not unique to that claim; Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief pursuant to all four of their state claims for relief. *** In short, even as to the array of remedies that Plaintiffs seek, their state claims predominate; indeed, rather than “trailing” the federal remedies, the state-based claims encompass additional prayers for relief, such as punitive damages.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On August 7, 2008, in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, No. S147190, the California Supreme Court seemingly ruled that Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code prohibits every attempt by an employer to enforce a non-competition agreement. The court indicated that the only exceptions are those expressly set forth in the statute (agreements in connection with the sale or dissolution of a business).

The same day, a class-action complaint was filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court, Vokes, et al. v. Central Garden & Pet Co., No. C 08-01994, that could test the reach of the Edwards decision.  Plaintiffs are asking the court to invalidate a non-compete agreement signed by Vokes when he became Central Garden’s Senior VP Sales and Trade Relations and, on behalf of all all Central Gardens employees, seeking to invalidate all of Central Gardens’ non-compete agreements as violating Section 16600 and related California statutes.

For more than 20 years prior to going to work for Central Gardens, Vokes had been employed by Doskocil, a competitor of Central Gardens. When he left in January 2007, he was VP of Sales. Upon becoming employed by Central Gardens as its Senior VP Sales and Trade Relations, he signed a non-compete agreement. It provided for 24 months of paid post-termination “independent contractor” status (according to the complaint, however, the compensation amount was “a small fraction of his wages as [a Central Gardens] employee”). The agreement mandated non-competitor employment and non-customer solicitation, in virtually any geographic market served by Central Gardens' market, during and for the 12 months following the “independent contractor” period.

In July 2008, Vokes resigned from Central Gardens and returned to Doskocil, in Texas. Central Gardens immediately sued in Texas to enforce the agreement and obtained a TRO (according to the Contra Costa County complaint, ex parte and without notice) against Vokes and Doskocil. They then filed the Contra Costa County complaint.

Whether the Contra Costa County court will adjudicate the complaint or will stay the action in light of the earlier-filed Texas complaint is uncertain. Also unclear is whether the Contra Costa County Court will certify the class and whether the agreement might be enforceable at least during the 24-months “independent contractor” period. The outcome of this case, if it proceeds, will be interesting.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

 By Robert Milligan, Kurt Kappes and James McNairy

The California Supreme Court released its highly anticipated decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP  today and held that employee non-competition agreements are invalid, even if narrowly drawn, unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception. 

In doing so, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s narrow restraint exception, which excepted the prohibition contained in Business and Professions section 16600 on non-competition agreements where one was barred from pursuing only a small part or limited part of the business, trade or profession.

In its decision, the Court limited its review to two issues:

1)      To what extent does Business and Professions Code section 16600 prohibit employee non-competition agreements;

2)      Is a contract provision requiring an employee to release “any and all” claims unlawful because it encompasses nonwaivable statutory protections, such as the employee indemnity protection of Labor Code section 2802.

The Court concluded that Business and Professions Section 16600 prohibits employee non-competition agreements unless the agreement falls within the applicable statutory exceptions of sections 16601, 16602, or 16602.5. The Court also held that a contract provision whereby an employee releases “any and all” claims does not encompass nonwaivable statutory protections, such as the employee indemnity protection of Labor Code section 2802.

On the first issue, the Court found that California state courts have consistently affirmed that section 16600 evinces a settled legislative policy in favor of open competition and employee mobility. Section 16660 states: “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” (emphasis added) The chapter excepts non-competition agreements in the sale or dissolution of corporations (§ 16601), partnerships (§ 16602), and limited liability corporations (§ 16602.5). 

The Court noted that it had previously invalidated an otherwise narrowly tailored agreement as an improper restraint under section 16600 because it required a former employee to forfeit his pension rights on commencing work for a competitor (citing Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 239, 242-243). The Court, quoting Muggill, stated section 16600 invalidates provisions in employment contracts and retirement pension plans that prohibit “an employee from working for a competitor after completion of his employment or imposing a penalty if he does so unless they are necessary to protect the employer’s trade secrets.”

The two clauses at issue in Edwards’ agreement with Andersen provided:

1)      If you leave the Firm, for eighteen months after release or resignation, you agree not to perform professional services of the type you provided for any client on which you worked during the eighteen months prior to release or resignation. This does not prohibit you from accepting employment with a client. 

2)      For twelve months after you leave the Firm, you agree not to solicit (to perform professional services of the type you provided) any client of the office(s) [Los Angeles] to which you were assigned during the eighteen months preceding release or resignation. 

Andersen argued that the Court should interpret the term “restrain” under section 16600 to mean simply to “prohibit,” so that only contracts that totally prohibit an employee from engaging in his or her profession, trade, or business are illegal. 

The Court rejected that argument and found that Andersen’s non-competition agreement was invalid because the two specific clauses at issue in the agreement restricted Edwards from performing work for Andersen’s Los Angeles clients and therefore restricted his ability to practice his accounting profession. 

Earlier in the decision, the Court expressly stated it did not address the applicability of the “so-called trade secret exception to section 16660.” Before the Supreme Court granted the petition for review in Edwards, the lower appellate court’s decision remanded the case to the trial court to determine if the trade secret exception applied, i.e. the non-competition agreement was necessary to protect trade secrets. The Court’s disposition indicates that the issue is closed though and that there will be no such remand to the trial court:

We hold that the noncompetition agreement here is invalid under section 16600, and we reject the narrow-restraint exception urged by Andersen. Noncompetition agreements are invalid under section 16600 in California even if narrowly drawn, unless they within the applicable statutory exceptions of sections 16601, 16602, or 16602.5

Andersen asked the Court to adopt the limited or “narrow-restraint” exception to section 16600. The Court noted that confusion over the Ninth Circuit’s application of section 16600 arose in a paragraph in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Campbell v. Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. (9^th Cir. 1987) 817 F.2d 499, in which the Ninth Circuit stated that some California state courts have excepted application of section 16600 “where one is barred from pursuing only a small or limited part of the business, trade or profession” (citing Boughton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 188 and King v. Gerold (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 316). The Court found that the reasoning in these state court cases does not provide persuasive support for adopting the narrow restraint exception because Boughton involved the use of land, not a restriction upon a plaintiff’s practice of a profession, and King relied upon a trade secret exception to the statutory rule. 

The Court acknowledged that recent Ninth Circuit cases have followed Campbell to create a narrow-restraint exception to section 16600 in federal court. The Court stated that California state courts have not embraced the Ninth Circuit’s narrow restraint exception and stated “no reported California state court decision has endorsed the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, and we are of the view that California courts have been clear in their expression that section 16660 represents a strong public policy of the state which should not be diluted by judicial fiat” (citing Scott v. Snelling and Snelling, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1990) 732 F. Supp. 1034, 1042).

In sum, while the Court’s decision clearly states California does not recognize a “narrow restraint” exception to the general rule that employee non-competition agreements are invalid, the Court did not specifically address when non-solicitation of customer and employee clauses are permissible to protect trade secrets. 

The San Francisco Chronicle also has posted an article about this case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

           According to the California Supreme Court's website, the Court’s highly anticipated decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, LLP will be available tomorrow, August 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. on the Court’s website.

            Trade secret and employment attorneys have been closely following the Edwards case after the Supreme Court granted review of the case on November 29, 2006. 

            In the lower court, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District expressly rejected somewhat settled Ninth Circuit case law that provides an exception to the general rule in California that covenants not to compete are unlawful in the employment context pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 16600. The narrow restraint exception essentially provides that a noncompetition agreement is not unlawful where it leaves a substantial portion of the market open to the employee. The lower court expressly found that the narrow restraint exception was a “misapplication of California law when applied to an employee’s noncompetition agreement.” The court further stated “[i]n our view, section 16600 prohibits noncompetition agreements between employers and employees even where the restriction is narrowly drawn and leaves a substantial portion of the market available for the employee.”

            The lower court also found that the broadly worded release that Edwards allegedly was required to sign was unlawful because it purportedly waived Edwards’ Labor Code section 2802 rights. Labor Code section 2802, subdivision (a), provides: "An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties . . ." The lower court held that “[b]ecause Labor Code section 2802's indemnity provisions implement public policy, requiring Edwards to waive indemnity rights as a condition of continued employment violated public policy and constituted an independently wrongful act for purposes of . . .[Edwards’] intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim.”

            The issues that the Supreme Court are expected to address in tomorrow’s decision are:

 (1) Is a non-competition agreement between an employer and an employee that prohibits the employee from performing services for former clients invalid under Business and Professions Code section 16600, unless it falls within the statutory or judicially-created trade secrets exceptions to the statute?

(2) Does a contract provision releasing "any and all" claims the employee might have against the employer encompass non-waivable statutory protections, such as the employee indemnity protection of Labor Code section 2802?

            We will provide a follow-up blog entry once the decision comes out.  

By Robert Milligan, James McNairy and Summer Associate Julia Brodsky

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks