California, home to more than 40 million people and the 5th largest economy in the world, has passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), its omnibus consumer privacy law. The law creates sweeping new requirements concerning the collection, maintenance, and tracking of information for both employees or customers who are residents of California. Many aspects of the implementation and enforcement are still being finalized by the California Attorney General. However, companies with employees or customers in California need to take stock of the information they are processing that could qualify as “personal information” for California residents, and they need to begin establishing mechanisms for compliance before the end of 2019. Continue Reading The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018: What Businesses Need to Know Now

In Seyfarth’s first installment in its 2019 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Michael Wexler, Robert Milligan, and Joshua Salinas reviewed noteworthy cases and legal developments from across the nation over the last year in the area of trade secrets and data theft, non-competes and other restrictive covenants, and computer fraud. Plus, they provided predictions for what to watch for in 2019.

As a conclusion to this well-received webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:

  • The Supreme Court will soon Rule on the meaning of the terms confidential and trade secrets within the meaning of Exemption 4 to FOIA which may have far reaching  implications to trade secret and non-compete practitioners.
  • State legislation across the country, including in Idaho, Utah, Colorado, and Massachusetts, continues to narrow or place further conditions on the scope of enforceable restrictive covenants.
  • Employers with Massachusetts employees should take care to review choice of law, choice of venue and consideration to support their agreements.
  • Employers with California employees should carefully evaluate whether to continue to use post-termination non-solicitation of employee covenants with their employees and contractors and discuss their options with counsel.
  • Company owners should be careful to not draw the attention of state attorney generals and the justice department by entering into agreements with competitors regarding the mobility of employees.

A California federal district court recently granted a TRO and preliminary injunction against a general manager who allegedly misappropriated customer information from his previous employer in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), and his employment agreement.  Sun Distributing Company v. Corbett, No. 18-cv-2231, 2018 WL 4951966 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2018).

Background

Sun Distributing is a distribution company that works with major national logistics companies to provide last-mile distribution to residences and businesses in California. Paul Corbett worked as a general manager at Sun Distributing. While employed, Corbett signed an employment agreement in which he agreed to a confidentiality provision stating that he would not use Sun Distributing’s trade secrets, including customer lists, needs, and pricing structures, in order to compete with Sun Distributing after he left the company. Corbett later resigned from Sun Distributing to work for Pacblue, a company that distributes free newspapers and other print media for publishers in California. Continue Reading California Federal District Court Grants TRO and Preliminary Injunction to Protect Trade Secret Customer Lists

On November 1, 2018, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s ruling in AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. et al., No. D071924, 2018 WL 5669154 (Cal. App. 2018), which (1) invalidated the plaintiff’s non-solicitation of employees provision in its Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements (CNDAs), (2) enjoined AMN from enforcing or attempting to enforce the employee non-solicitation provision in its CNDA with any of its former employees, and (3) awarded $169,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees to defendants for plaintiff’s use of the provision.

The case is a significant decision which may impact some employers’ continued use of employee non-solicitation provisions with their California employees, at least in certain industries. There is now a split in California authorities and the issue is likely ripe for California Supreme Court guidance.

AMN and Aya are competitors in the business of staffing temporary healthcare professionals, namely providing “travel nurses” to medical care facilities across the country.  When former employees, named as individual defendants in the action and who worked as travel nurse recruiters in California, left AMN for Aya, AMN brought suit against Aya and the former employees, asserting 11 causes of action, including for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation. Continue Reading California Appellate Panel Affirms Injunction Blocking Use of Employee Non-Solicitation Provision in Dispute Between Travel Nurse Providers

On October 9, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Frederick Shaller confirmed his tentative decision weeks earlier that the “show cause” penalty in the NCAA’s bylaws violates California law.

The decision was issued as a tentative ruling on plaintiff (former running back coach at USC) Todd McNair’s claim for declaratory relief. McNair sought—and received—a determination that the NCAA bylaw provisions including the “show cause order” penalty levied against him were void under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600.      Continue Reading California State Court Rules that NCAA “Show Cause” Penalty Constitutes an “Unlawful Restraint” Under California Law

A Ninth Circuit panel consisting of Judges A. Wallace Tashima, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Paul J. Watford recently heard oral argument in Anheuser-Busch Companies v. Clark, 17-15591, concerning the denial of a former employee’s anti-SLAPP motion in a trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract case. This is the second time the case has made its way up to the Ninth Circuit. We previously reported on this case in March 2017. The panel has not yet issued its decision but the Ninth Circuit’s decision could have far reaching implications for trade secret and data theft cases involving purported whistleblowing activities. Continue Reading Hold My Beer: Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Trade Secret/Anti-SLAPP Row for a Second Time

Back in 2015, we covered the divided holding of the Ninth Circuit in Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, that a “no re-hire” provision in a settlement agreement could constitute a restraint of trade in violation of California law. After a second round at the Ninth Circuit, the case has been reversed and remanded yet again, based on the panel majority’s conclusion that the “no re-hire” provisions at issue were overbroad and unenforceable. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Confirms “No Re-Hire” Clauses Can Constitute Unlawful Restraints of Trade in California

Seyfarth Partner and Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Compete Practice Group Co-Chair Robert Milligan is on the panel for the “Hot Topics in Trade Secret Litigation: the DTSA, Remedies, Anti-SLAPP, and Constitutional issues” session on November 8, at the California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Institute in San Jose, California.

The “Hot Topics in Trade Secret Litigation” session will cover some of the most intriguing (and vexing) topics in trade secret litigation and will provide attendees valuable insights from the trenches. The panel will address a broad range of issues, including:

  • The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA)
  • Trade secret misappropriation as the predicate act of a RICO claim
  • Damages and entitlement of alternative monetary relief
  • Anti-SLAPP issues
  • Constitutional issues, such as the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Seventh Amendment

For more information or to register for the IP Institute, click here: https://calawyers.org/Sections/Intellectual-Property-Law/Education/IP-Institute

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals1 recently upheld the position of the California Attorney General (AG) that charities located or doing business in California must provide a copy of their unredacted Form 990 Schedule B, including the names, addresses and contribution amounts for all donors listed with the annual report filed with the AG.2 While the AG has indicated that the collected information will not be made publicly available, this is unwelcome news for charities that are concerned about protecting their donors’ identities.3 Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reaffirms CA Attorney General’s Demand for Donor List

The Attorneys General of ten states are investigating fast food franchisors for their alleged use of “no poach” provisions in their franchise agreements, according to a press release by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, and as reported by NPR.  In a July 9, 2018 letter, the Attorneys General for New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Washington, D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island requested information from eight fast food companies about their alleged use of such provisions.  The letter states that the Attorneys General “have learned that certain franchise agreements used in our States and the District of Columbia . . . may contain provisions that impact some employees’ ability to obtain higher paying or more attractive positions with a different franchisee.”  In other words, the agreements purportedly prohibit one franchisee of a particular brand from hiring employees of another franchisee of the same brand.   Continue Reading State Attorneys General Investigate Fast Food Franchisor “No Poach” Agreements