Facebook Potential Employee Nondisclosure Agreement

FACEBOOK POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Thank you for agreeing to interview for a position with Facebook. In the course of your discussions with us, you
will be exposed to valuable proprietary information relating to Facebook’s operations and businesses that Facebook
needs to keep confidential. Therefore, as a condition of interviewing with us, we require that you review and sign
the attached Nondisclosure Agreement.
Please take a moment to review the attached agreement, and if it is acceptable to you, please sign it in the space
provided and give the signed copy to your recruitment coordinator. If the agreement is not acceptable, please let us
know and we will cancel your scheduled interview.
FACEBOOK CONFIDENTIAL
v1 1/5/06
POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
This Potential Employee Nondisclosure Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into by and between the
undersigned person (“Applicant”) and Facebook, Inc., a Delaware corporation (together with its corporate affiliates,
“Facebook”) as of the date set forth under Applicant’s signature below. In consideration of Facebook’s agreeing to
consider Applicant for employment and/or disclosing to Applicant information regarding Facebook’s operations and
business, Applicant and Facebook hereby agree as follows:
1. Confidentiality Obligations. Subject to the limitations in Section 2 below, Applicant will keep in strict
confidence all information (whether of a technical, business or other nature) disclosed to Applicant by Facebook or
any of its employees, agents or contractors (collectively, “Facebook Parties”). Applicant will not disclose any such
information to any third party, or use any such information for any purpose other than evaluation of potential
employment with Facebook. The restrictions in this Section 1 will apply to information disclosed verbally, in
writing or otherwise. Disclosure of any information by any Facebook Parties does not grant Applicant any license
under any patent, copyright, trade secret or other intellectual property right of Facebook.
2. Limitation on Confidentiality Obligations. The restrictions in Section 1 above do not apply to any
information that: (a) was in Applicant’s possession prior to receipt from Facebook; (b) is received by Applicant from
a source other than a Facebook Party without breach of any obligation of confidentiality; (c) is or becomes available
to the general public other than through a breach of this Agreement; or (d) is independently developed by Applicant
without reference to information disclosed by any Facebook Party.
3. Copies; Return of Materials. Applicant will not copy all or any part of any information covered by the
restrictions in Section 1 above, and will return all materials containing or summarizing any such information to
Facebook upon conclusion of Applicant’s discussions with Facebook, or in any event upon Facebook’s request.
4. Feedback. Applicant is under no obligation to give Facebook any ideas, suggestions, comments or other
feedback related to Facebook’s business or operations. If Applicant provides any such feedback to any Facebook
Party, Facebook will be free to use and implement that feedback, without restriction or obligation of any kind.
5. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving the other party five (5) days’ prior
written notice. Notwithstanding any termination of this Agreement, Applicant’s obligations under this Agreement
will survive and continue in effect for five (5) years following such termination.
6. Miscellaneous. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of California, without regard to its choice of
law rules. Exclusive jurisdiction over and venue of any suit related to this Agreement will be in the state and federal
courts of Santa Clara County, CA and/or San Francisco County, CA. No failure to enforce any provision of this
Agreement will constitute a waiver of that provision. The prevailing party in any suit related to this Agreement will
be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such suit. Applicant agrees that any
breach or threatened breach of this Agreement will cause irreparable harm to Facebook for which there will be no
adequate remedy at law and that in such event, Facebook will be entitled, without limitation, to injunctive relief
(including specific performance) without the necessity of proving harm. Applicant may not assign this Agreement
without Facebook’s written consent; subject to that limitation, this Agreement will inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the parties and their respective successors and assigns. This Agreement contains the entire agreement
between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, supersedes any prior or contemporaneous agreements
with respect thereto, and may not be amended except by a writing signed by Facebook and Applicant.
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED BY APPLICANT:
Signed: Applicant’s Address for Notices:
Printed Name:
Social Security Number:
Date:
FACEBOOK CONFIDENTIAL
v1 1/5/06
EX-10.7 14 d287954dex107.htm AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT -
SHERYL K. SANDBERG
EXHIBIT 10.7
EXECUTION COPY
January 27, 2012
Sheryl Sandberg
Facebook, Inc.
1601 Willow Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025

Re: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
Dear Sheryl:
This letter agreement amends and restates that certain offer letter entered into between you and Facebook, Inc. (the “Company”)
on February 20, 2008. You began your employment with the Company on March 24, 2008 (your “Start Date”). Your continued
employment by the Company shall be governed by the following terms and conditions (this “Agreement”).
1. Duties and Scope of Employment.
(a) Position. For the term of your employment (your “Employment”), the Company agrees to employ you in the position of
Chief Operating Officer (“COO”). You will report to Mark Zuckerberg and you will be working out of the Company’s office in Menlo
Park. You will be responsible for managing sales, business development, marketing, communications and policy, human resources,
and user operations. You understand and agree that the Company is a rapidly growing and changing organization and the precise
nature of the work you do for the Company as COO may be adjusted from time to time but, in any event, your duties and
responsibilities always will be at least commensurate with those duties and responsibilities normally associated with and appropriate
for someone in the position of COO.
(b) Obligations to the Company. While you render services to the Company, (1) you may deliver lectures, fulfill speaking
engagements and teach at educational institutions provided that such activities do not materially interfere with the performance of your
duties to the Company, and (2) you agree that you will not engage in any other employment, consulting, or other business activity
except as authorized by the Conflicts Committee or other written consent of the Company. The Company has reviewed the activities
that you are conducting at the time of this Agreement and agrees that they, and any substitute activities that are similar in nature and
scope, will not significantly interfere with your performance of the responsibilities of your Employment under this Agreement. In
addition, while you render services to the Company, you will not assist any person or entity in competing with the Company, in
preparing to compete with the Company or in hiring any employees or consultants of the Company. As an employee, you will also be
expected to comply with the Company’s policies and procedures.
(c) No Conflicting Obligations. You represent and warrant to the Company that you are under no obligations or
commitments, whether contractual or otherwise, that are materially inconsistent with your obligations under this Agreement. In
connection with your Employment, you shall not use or disclose any trade secrets or other proprietary information or intellectual
property in which you or any other person has any right, title or interest and your Employment will not infringe or violate the rights of
any other person. You represent and warrant to the Company that you have returned all property and confidential information
belonging to any prior employer, other than confidential information that has become generally known to the public or within the
relevant trade industry.
2. Cash and Incentive Compensation.
(a) Salary. The Company shall pay you as compensation for your services a base salary at a gross annual rate of $300,000.
Such salary shall be payable in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll procedures.
(b) Bonus. You are eligible to receive a semiannual discretionary bonus of up to a target of 45 % of your Base Eligible
Earnings as defined in the Company’s bonus plan. Based on your performance, you can overachieve your bonus target pursuant to the
Company’s bonus plan.
(c) Restricted Stock Units. The Company has granted you certain restricted stock units (“RSUs”) under its 2005 Stock
Plan (the “Plan”), pursuant to that Notice of RSU Award (Grant Number RS000300) dated August 1, 2008 (your “RSU Award”).
3. Vacation/PTO, Employee Benefits and other Incentive Compensation. During your Employment you shall be eligible to
accrue paid vacation / paid time off in accordance with the Company’s vacation / paid time off policy, as it may be amended from time
to time, and at the rate equal to other similarly situated executives. During your Employment, you shall be eligible to participate in the
employee benefit and incentive compensation plans maintained by the Company and generally available to similarly situated
employees of the Company, subject in each case to the generally applicable terms and conditions of the plan in question and to the
determinations of any person or committee administering such plan.
4. Business Expenses. The Company will reimburse you for your necessary and reasonable business expenses incurred in
connection with your duties hereunder upon presentation of an itemized account and appropriate supporting documentation, all in
accordance with the Company’s generally applicable policies.
5. Termination.
(a) Employment at Will. Your Employment shall be “at will,” meaning that either you or the Company shall be entitled to
terminate your Employment at any time and for any reason, with or without Cause (as defined below). Any contrary representations
that may have been made to you shall be superseded by this Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the full and complete
agreement between you and the Company on the “atwill” nature of your Employment, which may only be changed in an express
written agreement signed by you and a duly authorized officer of the Company.

2
(b) Rights Upon Termination. Except as expressly provided in Sections 6 and 9(b), (c) and (d), upon the termination of
your Employment, you shall only be entitled to the compensation and benefits earned and the reimbursements described in this
Agreement for the period preceding the effective date of the termination.
6. Termination Benefits.
(a) General Release. Any other provision of this Agreement notwithstanding, subsections (b) and (c) below shall not apply
unless and until (i) you have executed a full and complete general release of all claims substantially in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit A within twentyone (21) days of your termination (and you do not revoke such general release in accordance with its terms)
and (ii) you have returned all Company property (other than property of inconsequential value, but the parties agree that among other
things, any property capable of containing the Company’s confidential trade secret or proprietary information is material and must be
returned) within twentyone (21) days of your termination.
(b) Vesting Acceleration. If the Company terminates your Employment for any reason other than Cause, death or
Disability, then you shall be eligible to vest in the number of RSUs you would have vested in had your Continuous Service Status (as
defined in the Plan) continued for the first half of the months remaining between the date of your termination and the fifth
(5th) anniversary of your Start Date. If the Company terminates your Employment as a result of your death or Disability, you will be
eligible to vest in the number of additional shares you would have vested in had your Continuous Service Status continued for an
additional twelve (12) months from your death or Disability. Any RSUs that are eligible to vest pursuant to this Section 6(b) shall vest
upon the later of the date the release of claims described in Section 6(a) becomes effective and the Initial Vesting Event (as defined in
your RSU Award). Any RSUs that vest pursuant to this Section 6(b) shall be settled within (30) days following the date of vesting but
in no event later than March 15 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the later of the Initial Vesting Event or your
termination of Employment occurs. Any vesting acceleration related to termination of your Employment in connection with a Change
of Control will be governed by Section 6(c) of this Agreement and will not result in the vesting acceleration provided for in this
subsection.
(c) Change of Control Vesting Acceleration. If you are Involuntarily Terminated by the Company, other than as a result of
your death or Disability and within one (1) month prior to or within six (6) months following a Change of Control (as defined in the
Plan), then you shall be eligible to receive accelerated vesting of the RSUs so that you will become vested in 100% of the RSUs. Any
RSUs that vest pursuant to this Section 6(c) shall vest upon the later of the date the release of claims specified in subsection
(a) becomes effective and the Initial Vesting Event. Any RSUs that are eligible to vest pursuant to this Section 6(c) shall be settled
within thirty (30) days following the date of vesting but in no event later than March 15 of the calendar year following the calendar
year in which the later of the Initial Vesting Event and your Involuntary Termination occurs. Notwithstanding any provision of this
Agreement to the contrary, if you sign and do not revoke the release mentioned herein and thereafter file a lawsuit claiming you are
entitled to additional RSUs or additional shares of the Company’s common stock, the Company, at its option, may unilaterally cancel
any shares of the Company’s common stock that you obtained in connection with the vesting acceleration provided for in this
Section 6(c).

3
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if in connection with a Change of Control, the RSUs are not assumed or substituted for an
equivalent award (within the meaning of Section 15(c) of the Plan), then you shall be eligible to receive accelerated vesting of the
RSUs effective immediately prior to the Change of Control in accordance with the preceding paragraph. Any such RSUs shall be
settled within thirty (30) days following the date of the Change of Control but in no event later than March 15 of the calendar year
following the calendar year in which the Change of Control occurs.
(d) Definition of “Cause”. For all purposes under this Agreement, “Cause” shall mean a determination by the CEO that
any of the following have occurred:
(i) you committed an act of material dishonesty in connection with your responsibilities as an employee;
(ii) you failed to comply with the material terms of any written Company policy or rule as they may be in effect from
time to time during your employment and such failure is materially and demonstrably injurious to the Company;
(iii) you breached any material term of this Agreement, of the Confidential Information and Invention Assignment
Agreement between you and the Company, or any of other written agreement between you and the Company and such
breach is materially and demonstrably injurious to the Company;
(iv) you were convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, a felony or crime of moral turpitude; or
(v) you engaged in gross misconduct or gross neglect of your duties and such misconduct or neglect is materially and
demonstrably injurious to the Company.
The cessation of your Employment shall not be deemed to be for Cause unless and until you are sent a written notice of the
ground for the termination for “Cause” by the CEO finding that, in the good faith opinion of the CEO, you are guilty of the conduct
described above, and specifying the particulars thereof in detail. If the CEO does not deliver to you a notice of termination within
ninety (90) days after the later of the date the CEO has knowledge that an event constituting Cause has occurred and, where
applicable, the date the CEO has knowledge of the materiality of the injury to the Company, the event will no longer constitute Cause.
You will have fifteen (15) days to cure from the date the notice is received by you.
(e) Definition of “Involuntary Termination”. For purposes of this Agreement, “Involuntary Termination” shall mean the
termination of your Employment with the Company by reason of:
(i) Your involuntary dismissal or discharge by the Company, or by any acquiring or successor entity (or parent or any
subsidiary thereof employing you) for reasons other than Cause, or

4
(ii) Your voluntary resignation after the occurrence of one of the following conditions without your prior written
consent: (A) a material diminution in your base salary; (B) a material change in geographic location at which you must
perform services (a change in location of your office will be considered material only if it increases your current oneway
commute by more than fifty (50) miles); (C) any material failure of the successors to the Company after a Change of
Control to perform or cause the Company to perform the obligations of the Company under this Agreement; (D) any action
or inaction of the Company that constitutes a material breach of the terms of this Agreement; or (E) any other material
adverse change in your duties, authorities or responsibilities as specified in Section l(a), above, in each case, only if you
provide notice to the Company of the existence of the applicable condition described in Section 6(e)(ii) within 90 days of
the initial existence of the condition, the Company fails to remedy the condition within 30 days thereafter, and within the 30
day period immediately following such failure to remedy, you elect to terminate your Employment. The parties intend that
this trigger qualify as an involuntary separation from service trigger under Treasury Regulation Section 1.409Al(n)(2).
(f) Definition of “Disability”. For all purposes under this Agreement, “Disability” shall mean your inability to perform the
essential functions of your position with or without reasonable accommodation for a period of 120 consecutive days because of your
physical or mental impairment.
7. Confidentiality Agreement. You hereby reaffirm your obligations under the Confidential Information and Invention
Assignment Agreement between you and the Company, dated February 20, 2008, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B (the
“Confidentiality Agreement”).
8. Successors.
(a) Company’s Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon any successor (whether direct or indirect and whether
by purchase, lease, merger, consolidation, liquidation or otherwise) to all or substantially all of the Company’s business and/or assets.
Any such successor will within a reasonable period of becoming the successor assume in writing and be bound by all of the
Company’s obligations under this Agreement. For all purposes under this Agreement, the term “Company” shall include any successor
to the Company’s business or assets that becomes bound by this Agreement.
(b) Your Successors. This Agreement and all of your rights hereunder shall inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by,
your personal or legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors, heirs, distributees, devisees and legatees.
9. Miscellaneous Provisions.
(a) Indemnification. The Company agrees that if you are made a party or threatened to be made a party to any action, suit
or proceeding, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative (other than an action brought against you by the Company) by
reason of the fact that you are or were an employee of the Company or are or were serving at the request of the Company, as a director,
officer, member, employee or agent of another corporation

5
or a partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise, you shall be indemnified by the Company to the fullest extent permitted by
applicable law and the Company’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as the same exists or may hereafter be amended, against all
reasonably and actually incurred legal expenses and related costs incurred or suffered by you in connection therewith provided that
you cooperate with the Company in connection with such actual or threatened action, suit, proceeding or investigation, and such
indemnification shall continue even if you have ceased to be an officer or are no longer employed by the Company and shall inure to
the benefit of your heirs, executors and administrators. The Company shall provide you with directors’ and officers’ liability insurance
at least as favorable as the insurance coverage provided to other senior executive officers and directors of the Company respecting
liabilities, and reasonable legal fees and costs, charges and expenses incurred or sustained by you (or your legal representative or other
successors) in connection with any such proceeding. Unless otherwise provided in an indemnification agreement with the Company,
no indemnity shall be paid by the Company (i) if it shall be determined by a final judgment or other final adjudication that such
remuneration was in violation of law; (ii) if it is finally determined that, in connection with the above action, suit or proceeding, that
your conduct was finally adjudged to have been knowingly fraudulent, deliberately dishonest or willful; or (iii) if a final decision by a
Court having jurisdiction in the matter shall determine that such indemnification is not lawful. Unless otherwise provided in an
indemnification agreement with the Company, you agree to reimburse the Company for all reasonable expenses paid by the Company
in defending any civil or criminal action suit or proceeding against you in the event and only to the extent that it shall be ultimately
determined that you are not entitled to be indemnified by the Company for such expenses under the provisions of applicable law, the
Company’s bylaws, this Agreement or otherwise.
(b) Legal Fees. Following a Change of Control only, the Company shall pay the legal fees incurred by you to enforce the
terms of this Agreement or to dispute the legality of your termination.
(c) Parachute Payments. If any payment or benefit you would receive pursuant to a Change of Control from the Company
or otherwise (“Payment”) would (i) constitute a “parachute payment” within the meaning of Section 280G of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and (ii) but for this sentence, be subject to the excise tax imposed by Section 4999 of the
Code (the “Excise Tax”), then such Payment shall be reduced to the Reduced Amount. The “Reduced Amount” shall be either (x) the
largest portion of the Payment that would result in no portion of the Payment being subject to the Excise Tax or (y) the largest portion,
up to and including the total, of the Payment, whichever amount, after taking into account all applicable federal, state and local
employment taxes, income taxes, and the Excise Tax (all computed at the highest applicable marginal rate), results in your receipt, on
an aftertax basis, of the greater amount of the Payment notwithstanding that all or some portion of the Payment may be subject to the
Excise Tax. If a reduction in payments or benefits constituting “parachute payments” is necessary so that the Payment equals the
Reduced Amount and none of the parachute payments are nonqualified deferred compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code,
then the reduction shall occur in the manner you elect in writing prior to the date of payment. If any parachute payment constitutes
nonqualified deferred compensation subject to Section 409A or you fail to elect an order, then the reduction shall occur in the
following order: first a pro rata reduction of (i) cash payments subject to Section 409A of the Code as nonqualified deferred
compensation and (ii) cash payments not subject to Section 409A

6
of the Code, and second a pro rata cancellation of accelerated vesting of (i) equitybased compensation subject to Section 409A of the
Code as nonqualified deferred compensation and (ii) equitybased compensation not subject to Section 409A of the Code with, in
each case, the cancellation of accelerated vesting being applied first to vesting that is not subject to Treasury Regulation section
1.280G1 Q/A 24(c) and subsequently to vesting that is subject to such section, . Reduction in either cash payments or equity
compensation benefits shall be made pro rata between and among benefits which are subject to Section 409A of the Code and benefits
which are exempt from Section 409A of the Code. The accounting firm engaged by the Company for general audit purposes as of the
day prior to the effective date of the Change of Control shall perform the foregoing calculations. The Company shall bear all expenses
with respect to the determinations by such accounting firm required to be made hereunder. Any good faith determination of the
accounting firm made hereunder shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the Company and you.
(d) Compliance with Section 409A. You and the Company intend to structure and operate the payments and benefits
described in this Agreement, and your other compensation, to be exempt from or to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of
the Code to the extent applicable. The Company and you intend that your RSUs and RSU Award have been structured to be exempt
from or to comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code to the extent applicable. The Company agrees not to take any
action (or omit to take any action that is required to be taken) in respect of the RSUs (or any other similar award) that is materially
inconsistent with, contrary to or in material breach of the terms of the RSUs (or any similar award), other than as required by
applicable law, that causes you to incur tax in respect of a violation of Section 409A of the Code with respect to such RSUs unless you
request the action (or omission). For the avoidance of doubt, the Company agrees that any failure to follow the payment terms under
the RSUs (or any other similar award granted to you) will be considered a material breach. If you or the Company believes, at any
time, that any feature of your compensation or benefits (including your RSUs) does not comply with (or is not exempt from)
Section 409A of the Code or that any action taken or contemplated to be taken (including any failure to take action) in regards to your
compensation or benefits caused or might cause a violation of Section 409A of the Code, you or the Company will promptly advise the
other and will reasonably negotiate in good faith to amend the terms of the payments or benefits or alter the action or contemplated
action in order that your payments or benefit arrangements comply with (or are exempt from) the requirements of Section 409A of the
Code or in order to mitigate any additional taxes that may apply under Section 409A of the Code if compliance or exemption is not
practicable. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company is not responsible for the payment of any taxes, including income and excise
taxes, that you may incur under Section 409A of the Code, nor will the Company indemnify you for any such liability, unless the
Company breaches a material term of this Agreement or of any compensatory program in which you participate and that breach is the
cause of the 409A taxation/penalties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company will indemnify you to the greatest extent that it has
indemnified or agrees to indemnify any current or former employee who has incurred or incurs the additional taxes under
Section 409A in connection with an RSU or similar type of award due to the same or similar circumstances.
(e) Notice. Notices and all other communications contemplated by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed
to have been duly given when personally

7
delivered or when mailed by U.S. registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid. In your case, mailed
notices shall be addressed to you at the home address that you most recently communicated to the Company in writing. In the case of
the Company, mailed notices shall be addressed to its corporate headquarters, and all notices shall be directed to the attention of its
Secretary.
(f) Modifications and Waivers. No provision of this Agreement shall be modified, waived or discharged unless the
modification, waiver or discharge is agreed to in writing and signed by you and by an authorized officer of the Company (other than
you). No waiver by either party of any breach of, or of compliance with, any condition or provision of this Agreement by the other
party shall be considered a waiver of any other condition or provision or of the same condition or provision at another time.
(g) Whole Agreement. No other agreements, representations or understandings (whether oral or written and whether
express or implied) which are not expressly set forth in this Agreement have been made or entered into by either party with respect to
the subject matter hereof. This Agreement (including, for the avoidance of doubt, its Exhibits) and the Confidentiality Agreement
contain the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
(h) Withholding Taxes. All payments made under this Agreement shall be subject to reduction to reflect taxes or other
charges required to be withheld by law.
(i) Choice of Law and Severability. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of
California without giving effect to provisions governing the choice of law. If any provision of this Agreement becomes or is deemed
invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any applicable jurisdiction by reason of the scope, extent or duration of its coverage, then such
provision shall be deemed amended to the minimum extent necessary to conform to applicable law so as to be valid and enforceable
or, if such provision cannot be so amended without materially altering the intention of the parties, then such provision shall be stricken
and the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. If any provision of this Agreement is rendered illegal by
any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation (collectively, the “Law”) then that provision shall be curtailed or limited only
to the minimum extent necessary to bring the provision into compliance with the Law. All the other terms and provisions of this
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect without impairment or limitation.
(j) No Assignment. This Agreement and all of your rights and obligations hereunder are personal to you and may not be
transferred or assigned by you at any time. The Company may assign its rights under this Agreement to any entity that assumes the
Company’s obligations hereunder in connection with any sale or transfer of all or a substantial portion of the Company’s assets to such
entity.
(k) Authority. The Company represents and warrants that (i) the execution of this Agreement has been duly authorized by
the Company, including action of the Board, (ii) the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by the Company does not
and will not violate any law, regulation, order, judgment or decree or any agreement, plan or corporate

8
governance document of the Company and (iii) upon the execution and delivery of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be the valid
and binding obligation of the Company, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except to the extent enforceability may be limited by
bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by the effect of general principles
of equity (regardless of whether enforceability is considered in a proceeding in equity or at law).
(l) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts; each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
[Signature Page Follows]

9
To indicate your acceptance of the mutual promises contained in this letter agreement, please sign and date this letter in the space
provided below and return it to me.

Very truly yours,
FACEBOOK, INC.
By: /s/ David Ebersman
(Signature)
Name: David Ebersman
Title: Chief Financial Officer

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
SHERYL SANDBERG
/s/ Sheryl Sandberg
(Signature)

Date: January 27, 2012

Exhibit A: Form of General Release
Exhibit B: Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement

10
EXHIBIT A
FORM OF GENERAL RELEASE
General Release of Claims
This General Release of Claims (this “Release”), dated as of , 20 , confirms the following understandings and
agreements between Facebook, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Sheryl Sandberg (hereinafter referred to as “you” or
“your”).
In consideration of the promises set forth in that certain employment agreement between you and the Company dated
February 20, 2008[, as amended] (the “Employment Agreement”) as well as any promises set forth in this Release, you agree as
follows:
(1) Opportunity for Review and Revocation. [to be included if employee is age 40 or older]. You have twentyone (21) days to
review and consider this Release. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, this Release will not become effective or
enforceable for a period of seven (7) calendar days following the date of its execution, during which time you may revoke your
acceptance of this Release by notifying the General Counsel of the Company, in writing. To be effective, such revocation must be
received by the Company no later than 5:00 p.m. on the seventh (7th) calendar day following its execution. Provided that the Release is
executed and you do not revoke it, the eighth (8th) day following the date on which this Release is executed shall be its effective date
(the “Effective Date”). In the event of your revocation of this Release pursuant to this Section 1, this Release will be null and void and
of no effect, and the Company will have no obligations hereunder.
(2) Employee Release and Waiver of Claims.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1542 of the Civil Code of California, and in accordance with Section 2(c) and
Section 7(a) of the Employment Agreement, you and your representatives, agents, estate, heirs, successors and assigns, absolutely and
unconditionally hereby release, remise, discharge, indemnify and hold harmless the Company Releasees (“Company Releasees”
defined to include the Company and/or any of its parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, predecessors, successors or assigns, and its and
their respective current and/or former partners, directors, shareholders/stockholders, officers, employees, attorneys and/or agents, all
both individually and in their official capacities), from any and all legally waivable actions or causes of action, suits, claims,
complaints, contracts, liabilities, agreements, promises, contracts, torts, debts, damages, controversies, judgments, rights and demands,
whether existing or contingent, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which arise out of your employment with, change in
employment status with, and/or separation of employment from, the Company. This release is intended by you to be all encompassing
and to act as a full and total release of any legally waivable claims, whether specifically enumerated herein or not, that you may have
or have had against the Company Releasees arising from conduct occurring up to and through the date of this Release, including, but
not limited to, any legally waivable claims arising from any federal, state or local law, regulation or constitution dealing with either
employment, employment benefits or employment discrimination such as those laws or regulations concerning discrimination on the
basis of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, sex harassment, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, genetic carrier status,
handicap or disability, veteran status, any military service or application for military service, or any other category protected under
federal or state law; including any claims or causes of action you have or may have relating to discrimination under federal, state or
locate statutes (whether before a
court or an administrative agency) including, but not limited to, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (excluding all claims for accrued, vested benefits
under any employee benefit or pension plan of the Company subject to the terms and conditions of such plan and applicable law), the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Act,
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Constitution, the California Labor Code, and the California Civil
Code, all as amended from time to time; any contract, whether oral or written, express or implied; any tort; any claim for equity or
other benefits; or any other statutory and/or common law claim.
(b) You acknowledge that your execution of this Agreement shall be effective as a bar to each and every claim specified in
Sections 4(a) and 5 of this Agreement. Accordingly, you hereby expressly waive any and all rights and benefits conferred upon you by
the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code and expressly consent that this Agreement shall be given full force and
effect with respect to each and all of its express terms and provisions, including those related to unknown and/or unsuspected claims, if
any, as well as those relating to any other claims specified in Sections 4(a) and 5 of this Agreement. Section 1542 provides as follows:
“A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at
the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with
the debtor.”
You further represent that you understand and acknowledge the significance and consequence of such release as well as the specific
waiver of Section 1542.
(c) This Release does not include any claim which, as a matter of law, cannot be released by private agreement. Nor does
this Release prohibit or bar you from providing truthful testimony in any legal proceeding or from cooperating with, or making truthful
disclosures to, any governmental agency. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any claim that cannot be released by private
agreement, you agree to release and waive your right (if any) to any monetary damages or other recovery as to such claims, including
any claims brought on your behalf, either individually or as part of a collective action, by any governmental agency or other third
party.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of this Release to the contrary, by executing this Release, you are not releasing any
claims relating to (i) your rights or any other benefits expressly provided under the Employment Agreement including, but not limited
to, those provided for in Sections 11(b), 11(c) and 11(d), (ii) any rights relating to the restricted stock units (the “RSUs”) granted to
you pursuant to the Employment Agreement or otherwise or any rights relating to any other outstanding equity awards or (iii) any
indemnification or similar rights you may have as a current or former officer or director of the Company, including, without limitation,
any and all rights thereto referenced in the Employment Agreement, the Company’s bylaws, plan of reorganization or liquidation,
other governance documents, or any rights with respect to the Company’s directors’ and officers’ insurance policies.

2
(3) Company Release and Waiver of Claims. The Company covenants that, except for any claim that could be asserted by the
Company or its shareholders against you (1) for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, embezzlement, breach of trust, theft, violation of state
or federal securities laws, conversion, misuse or unauthorized disclosure of the Company’s confidential, proprietary or trade secret
information; (2) brought to enforce the terms and provisions of this Release or the Employment Agreement (including the Exhibits
thereto); or (3) based upon a claim that conduct in which you engaged constituted grounds for termination of your employment for
“Cause”, as defined in the Employment Agreement, it hereby waives any nonexcluded claims and releases you from such non
excluded claims.
(4) No Suit. You represent that you have not filed any complaints or charges against the Company with any federal, state, or local
administrative agency arising out of your employment with the Company on or prior to the Effective Date.
(5) Prior Agreement. You understand and agree that you have continuing obligations under the Confidential Information and
Inventions Assignment Agreement between you and the Company dated as of February 20, 2008 (hereinafter, the “CIIAA”). A copy
of the CIIAA is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. You reaffirm your commitment under the CIIAA in
this Release, and agree that, as part of this Release, you will comply fully with the terms of the CIIAA. You also confirm that you have
not violated the CIIAA.
(6) Restricted Stock Units. The Company previously granted you RSUs under the Company’s 2005 Stock Plan (the “Stock
Plan”). Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, as of the Effective Date you will be vested in [NUMBER] of the RSUs. All of your
rights and obligations with respect to the RSUs are governed by the terms and conditions of the Restricted Stock Unit Agreement.
(7) Confidentiality. You agree that you will not disclose to others the fact or terms of this Release, except that you may disclose
such information to your attorney or accountant in order for such individuals to render services to you.
(8) Successors and Assigns. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of your heirs, executors, administrators, legal
personal representatives and assigns and shall be binding upon your heirs, executors, administrators, legal personal representatives and
assigns.
(9) Severability. If any provision of this Release, or part thereof, is held invalid, void or voidable as against public policy or
otherwise, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions, or parts thereof, which may be given effect without the invalid provision or
part. To this extent, the provisions and parts thereof of this Release are declared to be severable. Any waiver of any provision of this
Release shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision of this Release unless expressly so indicated otherwise. The language of all
parts of this Release shall in all cases be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either of the parties.
(10) Governing Law. Any claims arising out of this Release (or any other claims arising out of the relationship between the
parties) shall be governed by and construed in

3
accordance with the laws of the state of California and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced and governed under the internal
and domestic laws of California, without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of laws of such state. Any claims or legal actions
by one party against the other shall be commenced and maintained in a court of competent jurisdiction in Santa Clara County,
California, and you hereby submit to the jurisdiction and venue of any such court.
(11) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but
all of which taken together will constitute one and the same instrument.
(12) This Agreement shall not be construed as an admission by you or the Company of any wrongful act, unlawful
discrimination, or breach of contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Release as of the date first written above.

By: /s/ Mark Zuckerberg
Name: Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook, Inc.
By: /s/ Sheryl Sandberg
Name: Sheryl Sandberg
I REPRESENT THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING RELEASE, THAT I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF SUCH RELEASE AND THAT I AM KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY EXECUTING THE SAME
WITHOUT DURESS OR COERCION FROM ANY SOURCE. IN ENTERING INTO THIS RELEASE, I DO NOT RELY ON ANY
REPRESENTATION, PROMISE OR INDUCEMENT MADE BY THE COMPANY OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THE CONSIDERATION DESCRIBED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

By: /s/ Sheryl Sandberg
Name: Sheryl Sandberg

4
EXHIBIT B
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND
INVENTION ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
EXECUTION COPY
FACEBOOK, INC.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND
INVENTION ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
FOR EMPLOYEES
As a condition of my becoming employed (or my employment being continued) by or retained as a consultant (or my consulting
relationship being continued) by Facebook, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Facebook”) or any of its current or future subsidiaries,
affiliates, successors or assigns (collectively, the “Company”), and in consideration of my employment or consulting relationship with
the Company and my receipt of the compensation now and hereafter paid to me by the Company, I agree to the following:
1. Employment or Consulting Relationship. I understand and acknowledge that this Agreement does not alter, amend or
expand upon any rights I may have to continue in the employ of, or in a consulting relationship with, or the duration of my
employment or consulting relationship with, the Company under any existing agreements between the Company and me or under
applicable law. Any employment or consulting relationship between the Company and me, whether commenced prior to or upon or
after the date of this Agreement, shall be referred to herein as the “Relationship.”
2. AtWill Relationship. I understand and acknowledge that my Relationship with the Company is and shall continue to be at
will, as defined under applicable law, meaning that either I or the Company may terminate the Relationship at any time for any reason
or no reason, without further obligation or liability, except as set forth in the employment agreement between me and the Company,
dated February 20, 2008.
3. Confidential Information.
(a) Company Information. I agree at all times during the term of my Relationship with the Company and thereafter, to
hold in strictest confidence, and not to use, except for the benefit of the Company to the extent necessary to perform my obligations to
the Company under the Relationship, or to disclose to any person, firm, corporation or other entity without written authorization of the
Board of Directors of the Company, any Confidential Information of the Company which I obtain or create. I further agree not to make
copies of such Confidential Information except as authorized by the Company. I understand that “Confidential Information” means
any Company proprietary information, technical data, trade secrets or knowhow, including, but not limited to, research, product plans,
products, services, suppliers, customer lists and customers (including, but not limited to, customers of the Company on whom I called
or with whom I became acquainted during the Relationship), prices and costs, markets, software, developments, inventions, laboratory
notebooks, processes, formulas, technology, designs, drawings, engineering, hardware configuration information, marketing, licenses,
finances, budgets or other business information disclosed to me by the Company either directly or indirectly in writing, orally or by
drawings or observation of parts or equipment or created by me during the period of the Relationship, whether or not during working
hours. I understand that Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, information pertaining to any aspect of
the Company’s business, which is either information not known by actual or potential competitors of the Company or other third
parties not under confidentiality obligations to the Company, or is otherwise proprietary information of the Company or its customers
or suppliers, whether of a technical nature or otherwise. I further understand that Confidential Information does not include any of the
foregoing items which has become publicly and widely known and made generally available through no wrongful act of mine or of
others who were under confidentiality obligations as to the item or items involved.
(b) Prior Obligations. I represent that my performance of all terms of this Agreement as an employee or consultant of the
Company has not breached and will not breach any agreement to keep in confidence proprietary information, knowledge or data
acquired by me prior or subsequent to the commencement of my Relationship with the Company, and I will not disclose to the
Company or use any inventions, confidential or nonpublic proprietary information or material belonging to any current or former
client or employer or any other party. I will not induce the Company to use any inventions, confidential or nonpublic proprietary
information, or material belonging to any current or former client or employer or any other party. I acknowledge and agree that I have
listed on Exhibit A all agreements (e.g., noncompetition agreements, nonsolicitation of customers agreements, nonsolicitation of
employees agreements, confidentiality agreements, inventions agreements, etc.) with a current or former employer, or any other person
or entity, that may restrict my ability to accept employment with the Company or my ability as an employee or consultant to recruit or
engage customers or service providers on behalf of the Company, or otherwise relate to or restrict my ability to perform my duties as
an employee of the Company or any obligation I may have to the Company.
(c) Third Party Information. I recognize that the Company has received and in the future will receive confidential or
proprietary information from third parties subject to a duty on the Company’s part to maintain the confidentiality of such information
and to use it only for certain limited purposes. I agree to hold all such confidential or proprietary information in the strictest confidence
and not to disclose it to any person, firm or corporation or to use it except as necessary in carrying out my work for the Company
consistent with the Company’s agreement with such third party.
4. Inventions.
(a) Inventions Retained and Licensed. I have attached hereto, as Exhibit A, a list describing with particularity all
inventions, original works of authorship, developments, improvements, and trade secrets which were made by me prior to the
commencement of the Relationship (collectively referred to as “Prior Inventions”), which belong solely to me or belong to me jointly
with another, which relate in any way to any of the Company’s proposed businesses, products or research and development, and which
are not assigned to the Company hereunder; or, if no such list is attached, I represent that there are no such Prior Inventions. If, in the
course of my Relationship with the Company, I incorporate into a Company product, process or machine a Prior Invention owned by
me or in which I have an interest, the Company is hereby granted and shall have a nonexclusive, royaltyfree, irrevocable, perpetual,
worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to make, have made, copy, modify, make derivative works of, use, sell and otherwise
distribute such Prior Invention as part of or in connection with such product, process or machine.

2
(b) Assignment of Inventions. I agree that I will promptly make full written disclosure to Facebook, will hold in trust for
the sole right and benefit of Facebook, and hereby assign to Facebook, or its designee, all my right, title and interest throughout the
world in and to any and all inventions, original works of authorship, developments, concepts, knowhow, improvements or trade
secrets, whether or not patentable or registrable under copyright or similar laws, which I may solely or jointly conceive or develop or
reduce to practice, or cause to be conceived or developed or reduced to practice, during the period of my Relationship with the
Company (collectively referred to as “Inventions”), except as provided in Section 4(e) below. I further acknowledge that all Inventions
which are made by me (solely or jointly with others) within the scope of and during the period of my Relationship with the Company
are “works made for hire” (to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law) and are compensated by my salary (if I am an employee)
or by such amounts paid to me under any applicable consulting agreement or consulting arrangements (if I am a consultant), unless
regulated otherwise by the mandatory law of the state of California.
(c) Maintenance of Records. I agree to keep and maintain adequate and current written records of all Inventions made by
me (solely or jointly with others) during the term of my Relationship with the Company. The records may be in the form of notes,
sketches, drawings, flow charts, electronic data or recordings, laboratory notebooks, and any other format. The records will be
available to and remain the sole property of the Company at all times. I agree not to remove such records from the Company’s place of
business except as expressly permitted by Company policy which may, from time to time, be revised at the sole election of the
Company for the purpose of furthering the Company’s business. I agree to return all such records (including all copies thereof) to
Facebook at the time of termination of my Relationship with the Company as provided for in Section 5.
(d) Patent and Copyright Rights. I agree to assist Facebook, or its designee, at its expense, in every proper way to secure
Facebook’s, or its designee’s, rights in the Inventions and any copyrights, patents, trademarks, mask work rights, moral rights, or other
intellectual property rights relating thereto in any and all countries, including the disclosure to Facebook or its designee of all pertinent
information and data with respect thereto, the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations, and all
other instruments which Facebook or its designee shall deem necessary in order to apply for, obtain, maintain and transfer such rights,
or if not transferable, waive such rights, and in order to assign and convey to Facebook or its designee, and any successors, assigns and
nominees the sole and exclusive rights, title and interest in and to such Inventions, and any copyrights, patents, mask work rights or
other intellectual property rights relating thereto. I further agree that my obligation to execute or cause to be executed, when it is in my
power to do so, any such instrument or papers shall continue after the termination of this Agreement until the expiration of the last
such intellectual property right to expire in any country of the world. If Facebook or its designee is unable because of my mental or
physical incapacity or unavailability or for any other reason to secure my signature to apply for or to pursue any application for any
United States or foreign patents, copyright, mask works or other registrations covering Inventions or original works of authorship
assigned to Facebook or its designee as above, then I hereby irrevocably designate and appoint Facebook and its duly authorized
officers and agents as my agent and attorney in fact, to act for and in my behalf and stead to execute and file any such applications and
to do all other lawfully permitted acts to further the application for, prosecution, issuance, maintenance or transfer of

3
letters patent, copyright or other registrations thereon with the same legal force and effect as if originally executed by me. I hereby
waive and irrevocably quitclaim to Facebook or its designee any and all claims, of any nature whatsoever, which I now or hereafter
have for infringement of any and all proprietary rights assigned to Facebook or such designee.
(e) Exception to Assignments. I understand that the provisions of this Agreement requiring assignment of Inventions to
Facebook do not apply to any invention which qualifies fully under the provisions of California Labor Code Section 2870 (attached
hereto as Exhibit B). I will advise the Company promptly in writing of any inventions that I believe meet such provisions and are not
otherwise disclosed on Exhibit A.
5. Company Property; Returning Company Documents. I acknowledge and agree that I have no expectation of privacy with
respect to the Company’s telecommunications, networking or information processing systems (including, without limitation, stored
company files, email messages and voice messages) and that my activity and any files or messages on or using any of those systems
may be monitored at any time without notice. I further agree that any property situated on the Company’s premises and owned by the
Company, including disks and other storage media, filing cabinets or other work areas, is subject to inspection by Company personnel
at any time with or without notice. I agree that, at the time of termination of my Relationship with the Company, I will deliver to the
Company (and will not keep in my possession, recreate or deliver to anyone else) any and all devices, records, data, notes, reports,
proposals, lists, correspondence, specifications, drawings, blueprints, sketches, laboratory notebooks, materials, flow charts,
equipment, other documents or property, or reproductions of any of the aforementioned items developed by me pursuant to the
Relationship or otherwise belonging to the Company, its successors or assigns. In the event of the termination of the Relationship, I
agree to sign and deliver the “Termination Certification” attached hereto as Exhibit C; however, my failure to sign and deliver the
Termination Certificate shall in no way diminish my continuing obligations under this Agreement.
6. Notification to Other Parties.
(a) Employees. In the event that I leave the employ of the Company, I hereby consent to notification by the Company to my
new employer about my rights and obligations under this Agreement.
(b) Consultants. I hereby grant consent to notification by the Company to any other parties besides the Company with
whom I maintain a consulting relationship, including parties with whom such relationship commences after the effective date of this
Agreement, about my rights and obligations under this Agreement.
7. Solicitation of Employees, Consultants and Other Parties. I agree that during the term of my Relationship with the
Company, and for a period of twentyfour (24) months immediately following the termination of my Relationship with the Company
for any reason, whether with or without cause, I shall not either directly or indirectly solicit, induce, recruit or encourage any of the
Company’s employees or consultants to terminate their relationship with the Company, or attempt to solicit, induce, recruit, encourage
or take away employees or consultants of the Company, either for myself or for any other person or entity. Further, during

4
my Relationship with the Company and at any time following termination of my Relationship with the Company for any reason, with
or without cause, I shall not use any Confidential Information of the Company to attempt to negatively influence any of the
Company’s clients or customers from purchasing Company products or services or to solicit or influence or attempt to influence any
client, customer or other person either directly or indirectly, to direct his or its purchase of products and/or services to any person,
firm, corporation, institution or other entity in competition with the business of the Company.
8. Representations and Covenants.
(a) Facilitation of Agreement. I agree to execute promptly any proper oath or verify any proper document required to carry
out the terms of this Agreement upon the Company’s written request to do so.
(b) Conflicts. I represent that my performance of all the terms of this Agreement does not and will not breach any
agreement I have entered into, or will enter into with any third party, including without limitation any agreement to keep in confidence
proprietary information acquired by me in confidence or in trust prior to commencement of my Relationship with the Company. I
agree not to enter into any written or oral agreement that conflicts with the provisions of this Agreement.
(c) Voluntary Execution. I certify and acknowledge that I have carefully read all of the provisions of this Agreement and
that I understand and will fully and faithfully comply with such provisions.
9. General Provisions.
(a) Governing Law. The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the
laws of the State of California, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws.
(b) Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between the Company and me
relating to the subject matter herein and merges all prior discussions between us. No modification or amendment to this Agreement,
nor any waiver of any rights under this Agreement, will be effective unless in writing signed by both parties. Any subsequent change
or changes in my duties, obligations, rights or compensation will not affect the validity or scope of this Agreement.
(c) Severability. If one or more of the provisions in this Agreement are deemed void by law, then the remaining provisions
will continue in full force and effect.
(d) Successors and Assigns. This Agreement will be binding upon my heirs, executors, administrators and other legal
representatives, and my successors and assigns, and will be for the benefit of the Company, its successors, and its assigns.
(e) Survival. The provisions of this Agreement shall survive the termination of the Relationship and the assignment of this
Agreement by the Company to any successor in interest or other assignee.

5
(f) Remedies. I acknowledge and agree that violation of this Agreement by me may cause the Company irreparable harm,
and therefore agree that the Company will be entitled to seek extraordinary relief in court, including but not limited to temporary
restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions without the necessity of posting a bond or other security and in
addition to and without prejudice to any other rights or remedies that the Company may have for a breach of this Agreement.
(g) ADVICE OF COUNSEL. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, IN EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT, I HAVE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK THE ADVICE OF INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL, AND I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD
ALL OF THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED
AGAINST ANY PARTY BY REASON OF THE DRAFTING OR PREPARATION HEREOF.
[Signature Page Follows]

6
The parties have executed this Agreement on the respective dates set forth below:

COMPANY: EMPLOYEE:
FACEBOOK, INC. , an Individual:
By: /s/ Mark Zuckerberg
Name: Mark Zuckerberg /s/ Sheryl Sandberg

Signature
Title: CEO
Date: Feb. 20, 2008 Date: 2/20/08

7
EXHIBIT A
LIST OF PRIOR INVENTIONS
AND ORIGINAL WORKS OF AUTHORSHIP
EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 5

Identifying Number
Title Date or Brief Description
No inventions or improvements
Additional Sheets Attached

Signature of Employee/Consultant: /s/ Sheryl Sandberg
Print Name of Employee/Consultant: Sheryl Sandberg
Date: 2/20/08
EXHIBIT B
Section 2870 of the California Labor Code is as follows:
(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her
rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own
time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or
demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise
excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is
unenforceable.
EXHIBIT C
TERMINATION CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that I do not have in my possession, nor have I failed to return, any devices, records, data, notes, reports,
proposals, lists, correspondence, specifications, drawings, blueprints, sketches, laboratory notebooks, flow charts, materials,
equipment, other documents or property, or copies or reproductions of any aforementioned items belonging to Facebook, Inc., its
subsidiaries, affiliates, successors or assigns (together the “Company”).
I further certify that I have complied with all the terms of the Company’s Confidential Information and Invention Assignment
Agreement signed by me, including the reporting of any inventions and original works of authorship (as defined therein), conceived or
made by me (solely or jointly with others) covered by that agreement.
I further agree that, in compliance with the Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement, I will preserve as
confidential all trade secrets, confidential knowledge, data or other proprietary information relating to products, processes, knowhow,
designs, formulas, developmental or experimental work, computer programs, data bases, other original works of authorship, customer
lists, business plans, financial information or other subject matter pertaining to any business of the Company or any of its employees,
clients, consultants or licensees.
I further agree that for twentyfour (24) months from the date of this Certificate, I shall not either directly or indirectly solicit,
induce, recruit or encourage any of the Company’s employees or consultants to terminate their relationship with the Company, or
attempt to solicit, induce, recruit, encourage or take away employees or consultants of the Company, either for myself or for any other
person or entity. Further, I shall not at any time use any Confidential Information of the Company to negatively influence any of the
Company’s clients or customers from purchasing Company products or services or to solicit or influence or attempt to influence any
client, customer or other person either directly or indirectly, to direct his or its purchase of products and/or services to any person,
firm, corporation, institution or other entity in competition with the business of the Company.

Date:

(Employee’s Signature)

(Type/Print Employee’s Name)
Case 8:16-cv-01503-VMC-AEP Document 164 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 27 PageID 2120
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ADAMS ARMS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:16-cv-1503-T-33AEP
UNIFIED WEAPON SYSTEMS, INC.

et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court pursuant to Adams Arms,
LLC’s Motion to Dismiss or Strike Unified Weapon Systems,
Inc.’s First Amended Counterclaim (Doc. # 119), which was
filed on October 28, 2016. On November 18, 2016, Unified
Weapon Systems, Inc. (“UWSI”) filed a Response in Opposition
to the Motion. (Doc. # 128). Also before the Court is Adams’
Motion to Dismiss Aguieus, LLC’s Counterclaim (Doc. # 123),
which was filed on November 2, 2016. Aguieus filed a Response
to the Motion on November 28, 2016. (Doc. # 131).
As explained below, the Court denies Adams’ Motion to
Dismiss UWSI’s Counterclaims. The Court grants in part Adams’
Motion to Dismiss Aguieus’ Counterclaims to the extent that
Aguieus’ Counterclaim for breach of the Letter of Intent is
dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend by
February 21, 2017.

I. Facts
A. The Parties
Adams is a Tampa, Florida, weapons manufacturer
specializing in “small arms, including high-powered military
rifles.” (Doc. # 106 at ¶ 1). UWSI is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Florida. (Id. at ¶
11). UWSI is alleged to be a subsidiary of Aguieus. (Doc. #
106 at ¶ 11). Aguieus is a Delaware limited liability
corporation. (Id. at ¶ 12). Michael Bingham claims to be the
managing member of Aguieus and the Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer of UWSI. (Id. at ¶ 13).1 Christian
Quintanilla Aurich, an individual who resides in Peru, is the
President and Chief Executive Officer of UWSI. (Doc. # 106 at
¶ 14). General James W. Parker, a resident of Hillsborough
County, is a retired Major General from the United States Army
1
On January 20, 2017, UWSI and Aurich filed an eleven-
count Cross-claim against Aguieus and Bingham, alleging, inter
alia, that Bingham falsely represented that he was the true
owner of UWSI and containing the following counts: Fla. Stat.
§ 495.151 (Count One); common law trade name & trademark
infringement (Count Two); Fla. Stat. § 495.131 (Count Three);
tortious interference (Count Four); Lanham Act (Count Five);
Fla. Stat. § 501.204 (Count Six); common law indemnity (Counts
Seven and Eight); breach of fiduciary duty (Count Nine); fraud
(Count Ten); and the wrongful act doctrine (Count Eleven).
(Doc. # 149). The filing of the Cross-claim calls into
question the relationship between the Defendants. Aguieus and
Bingham are not currently represented by counsel and have not
yet responded to the Cross-claim.
2
and serves as a Director and advisor for UWSI. (Id. at ¶ 15).
B. The Letter of Intent and Nondisclosure Agreements
In early 2014, Aguieus approached Adams with a proposal
for the two companies to work together on a bid to supply
high-powered military rifles designed and built by Adams to
the Peruvian military. (Id. at ¶ 18). According to Bingham,
the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Peru (the “Peruvian
MOD”) contacted UWSI concerning the opportunity to secure a
multi-year contract for the supply of rifles. (Id. ¶ 19).
“The Peruvian MOD was purportedly funding the purchase through
the Peruvian Factory of Weapons and Ammunition from the Army
S.A.C. (‘FAME’).” (Id.). The rifles would be constructed
based on the Peruvian MOD’s specifications “with input by UWSI
and its business partners.” (Id. ¶ 20). Adams alleges that
“Aguieus and UWSI, through Mr. Bingham and Mr. Aurich,
solicited [Adams] to be a business partner in the project.”
(Id.). The project would require Adams to provide UWSI with
products, such as demonstration rifles, to disclose trade
secrets and confidential information, and allow a tour of
Adams’ manufacturing facility. (Id. at ¶ 21).
On February 24, 2014, as an “inducement” for Adams to
join the project, Aurich and Bingham, on behalf of Aguieus,
executed a “Mutual Confidentiality and Nondisclosure
3
Agreement” with Adams “in which Aguieus agreed not to use
[Adams’] confidential information, including [Adams’]
technical data, trade secrets, and know-how, for its own use
or for any purpose other than the commercial relationship
between [Adams] and Aguieus.” (Id. at ¶ 22).2 The Mutual
Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement allowed Aguieus to
share Adams’ confidential information with others, such as
UWSI, so long as they “acknowledged and agreed to be bound by
the [Mutual Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement].”
(Id.).
Thereafter, on April 29, 2014, Bingham sent Adams a six-
page Letter of Intent, which UWSI and Adams executed. (Id. at
¶ 23). The Letter of Intent describes the “mutual intentions”
between “Unified Weapon Systems (‘Buyer’) and Adams Arms
(‘Seller’).” (Doc. # 117-3 at 1)(emphasis in original).
“After signing the [Letter of Intent], on or about June 25,
2014, Mr. Bingham represented to [Adams] that there would be
an immediate order for 3,000 units for use by the Peruvian
MOD.” (Doc. # 106 at ¶ 32).
During that time, General Parker met with Adams’
2
There are at least two Adams Arms Mutual
Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements on file dated
February 24, 2014. One is executed by Aurich (Doc. # 106-1 at
4) and the other is executed by Bingham. (Doc. # 106-2 at 4).
Both of these Agreements name “Aguieus” as the “Receiving
Party.” (Id.). General Parker signed a different version of
the agreement on June 24, 2014. (Doc. # 106-4 at 8).
4
President and CEO, Michael Froning, “and represented to Mr.
Froning that General Parker possessed significant expertise
and knowledge regarding foreign and domestic military matters,
which would be helpful to [Adams] in negotiating the rifle
contract with UWS[I].” (Id. at ¶ 33). According to Adams,
General Parker failed to disclose that he was a Director and
advisor for UWSI and “when Mr. Froning asked General Parker
whether he had any conflicts of interest or ties with UWS[I]
that would prevent him from being loyal to [Adams], General
Parker misrepresented to Mr. Froning that he had no ties to
UWS[I].” (Id. at ¶ 34).
In furtherance of General Parker’s efforts to gain access
to Adams’ trade secrets, on June 24, 2014, General Parker
executed a separate confidentiality agreement vowing to hold
Adams’ confidential information and trade secrets “in strict
confidence” and agreeing “not to use any Confidential
Information for any purpose other than the Business Purpose.”
(Doc. # 106-4 at 3). General Parker also executed a
Consulting Services Agreement on July 7, 2014, further
agreeing to keep Adams’ proprietary information confidential
and to only use such information in connection with providing
services on behalf of Adams. (Doc. # 106-5).
C. Adams Divulges Trade Secrets
Adams “has spent a number of years and endless resources”
5
developing “numerous trade secrets that are crucial and
extremely valuable to its business.” (Doc. # 106 at ¶¶ 29-30).
Adams explains that it “exerts great efforts to ensure that
its trade secrets remain confidential,” such as requiring
employees and third parties to sign nondisclosure agreements,
maintaining security cameras at its facilities, and requiring
badges for entry into its facilities. (Id. at ¶ 30).
Nonetheless, and in reliance on the Mutual
Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements, General Parker’s
confidentiality agreement, the Letter of Intent, and other
assurances, Adams disclosed its trade secrets to UWSI,
Aguieus, Bingham, Aurich, and General Parker. (Id. at ¶ 28).
After the parties formalized their agreements and Adams
disclosed its trade secrets, the rifle project began in
earnest. Between August of 2014, and February of 2015, Adams
manufactured demonstration rifles for examination and testing
by UWSI and the Peruvian MOD. (Id. at ¶¶ 38-44). On October
13, 2014, UWSI sent Adams a 2.1 million dollar purchase order
for rifles. (Id. at ¶ 39).
On February 8 and 9, 2015, representatives of

[Adams] attended the demonstration of [Adams’]
rifles to the Peruvian MOD. During the
demonstration, UWSI leveraged [Adams’] brand name
and weapons-making experience, identifying [Adams]
as one of its lead partners, and UWSI used [Adams’]
trademarks to market the rifles to the Peruvian
MOD. To [Adams’] knowledge, UWSI has no ability to
6
design or manufacture any rifles. Instead, it was

marketing [Adams’] rifles to the customer.
(Id. at ¶ 44). According to Adams, the demonstration was a
success, and “all parties approved moving forward with the
joint venture with [Adams] as the manufacturer.” (Id. at ¶
45).
Between April of 2015, and September of 2015, Bingham
requested supplier pricing information for the separate
components of Adams’ rifles, which Adams provided. (Id. at ¶
46). Bingham also requested information about Adams’
manufacturing facility and equipment, and Adams allowed tours
of its facility in Florida during which Adams revealed step-
by-step details of its manufacturing processes, machinery, and
tooling. (Id. at ¶¶ 46-48).
Following the meetings in Florida, Bingham requested
additional confidential and proprietary information, which he
represented was necessary to secure the contract with FAME.
(Id. at ¶ 50). This information included photographs of
Adams’ facility, assembly work stations, and tool boxes; a
complete list of parts, parts configurations, parts suppliers,
and prices; a list of all tooling needed for assembly of
Adams’ rifles; a breakdown of the rifle configuration; and
proprietary details of Adams’ technician training program.
(Id.).
7
On September 25, 2015, Bingham represented to Adams that
all submissions to FAME were completed on time “thanks to
[Adams].” (Id. at ¶ 52). On November 19, 2015, FAME issued
its bid solicitation for the rifles. (Id. at ¶ 53). On
December 10, 2015, UWSI submitted a qualified offer in
response to the bid solicitation using Adams’ designs,
procedures, and specifications. (Id. at ¶ 55). On December
18, 2015, FAME announced UWSI as the winning bidder. (Id. at
¶ 58).
D. Squeeze-Out of Adams
After UWSI obtained the winning bid, UWSI “began taking
steps to squeeze [Adams] out of the final purchase
contract[.]” (Id. at ¶ 61). UWSI and Bingham refused Adams’
requests for documents and meetings, although UWSI and Bingham
“continued to seek guidance and input” from Adams about the
design of the rifles. (Id. at ¶¶ 62-64). On December 30,
2015, Aurich advised Adams that UWSI would take the entire
project over now that UWSI had all of Adams’ technical and
pricing data. (Id. at ¶ 65). In the months that followed,
Adams was excluded from multiple meetings with FAME, including
another meeting in Peru to test Adams’ rifles before final
contract execution. (Id. at ¶ 66).
II. Procedural History and Amended Counterclaims
A. Adams Sets the Stage
8
Adams initiated this action on June 10, 2016, by filing
the Complaint. (Doc. # 1). At this juncture, the Complaint
has been amended and contains the following counts: breach of
Letter of Intent against UWSI (Count One); breach of Mutual
Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement against all
Defendants (Count Two); breach of Confidentiality Agreement
against General Parker (Count Three); breach of the Consulting
Services Agreement as to General Parker (Count Four);
misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act as to all
Defendants (Count Five); misappropriation under the Florida
Trade Secrets Act against all Defendants (Count Six); unfair
competition under the Lanham Act against UWSI (Count Seven);
unjust enrichment against UWSI and Aguieus (Count Eight);
specific performance of the Mutual Confidentiality and
Nondisclosure Agreement as to Aguieus and UWSI (Count Nine);
and replevin (Count Ten). (Doc. # 106).
On July 13, 2016, UWSI filed its Motion to Dismiss Counts
One, Two and Five of Adams’ original Complaint (Doc. # 49), as
well as its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and a tortious
interference Counterclaim against Adams. (Doc. # 52). Aurich
likewise filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts Two and Five of
Adams’ original Complaint (Doc. # 50) along with his Answer
and Affirmative Defenses on July 13, 2016. (Doc. # 51).
Thereafter, on August 2, 2016, Adams filed a Motion to Dismiss
9
UWSI’s tortious interference Counterclaim. (Doc. # 81).
On September 27, 2016, the Court entered a detailed Order
denying all of the then-pending Motions. (Doc. # 94).
Thereafter, on October 12, 2016, Adams filed a Motion to Amend
the Complaint, which the Court granted. (Doc. ## 104, 105).
Adams’ Amended Complaint was filed on October 13, 2016. (Doc.
# 106). One day later, on October 14, 2016, UWSI filed a
Motion to Amend its Counterclaim, which the Court also
granted. (Doc. ## 107, 108).
B. UWSI and Aguieus Lodge Counterclaims
UWSI filed its Amended Counterclaim on October 17, 2016.
(Doc. # 109). UWSI’s Amended Counterclaim seeks relief against
Adams for tortious interference (Count One), breach of the
Letter of Intent (Count Two), breach of the Mutual
Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement (Count Three), and
unjust enrichment (Count Four). In support of these claims,
UWSI maintains that Adams’ untimely provision of ultimately
defective rifles cost UWSI the lucrative deal with the
Peruvian MOD. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-17). When Adams did produce
rifles, UWSI alleges that such rifles “did not function
properly.” (Id. at ¶ 17). According to UWSI, the rifles
“jammed” and a demonstration held on February 12, 2015, “was
an embarrassment and a total failure.” (Id. at ¶ 18). “In the
months following the failed demonstration, UWSI’s frustration
10
grew because Adams failed to produce functioning Rifles
despite having over a year to do so.” (Id. at ¶ 20).
Despite losing the MOD deal, UWSI claims that it gave
Adams another chance with respect to securing a deal with
FAME. UWSI indicates that it “conducted ammunition testing for
FAME at Adams’ facility” successfully. (Id. at ¶ 24). UWSI
maintains that, using its own “ingenuity,” it conducted a
successful rifle demonstration with the Peruvian Police in
November of 2015. (Id. at ¶ 25). Thereafter, “FAME selected
UWSI to co-manufacture the Rifles.” (Id. at ¶ 27).
However, according to UWSI, the rifles had to be
reconfigured with “numerous modifications” to meet the
exacting bid specifications. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-30). UWSI explains
that, as originally configured, the rifles “failed 70% of the
time.” (Id. at ¶ 28). “On January 13, 2015, UWSI and Adams
put the Rifles through FAME testing protocol and the Rifles
failed again. After several testing failures, Adams’
representatives abandoned UWSI and the prototype Rifles.” (Id.
at ¶ 29). UWSI explains that its relationship with Adams
completely deteriorated and UWSI found alternative vendors to
provide the rifle parts, as such, the UWSI “Rifles that are in
FAME’s possession have no Adams parts in them.” (Id. at ¶
33)(emphasis in original).
Adams voiced its concerns to FAME officials in an email
11
dated May 6, 2016, asserting that the rifles subject to the
bid employed technology belonging to Adams and threatening
litigation. (Id. at ¶¶ 36-41). On May 16, 2016, UWSI and FAME
entered into a written agreement (the “FAME Agreement”)
specifying that FAME and UWSI agreed to manufacture the rifles
in FAME’s facilities in Peru. (Id. at ¶¶ 34-35).
UWSI asserts that the email from Adams to FAME was
written “with the specific and malicious intent of interfering
with UWSI’s agreement and ongoing relationship with FAME and
[to] disrupt the same.” (Id. at ¶ 40). UWSI claims that after
FAME received Adams’ email, FAME “refused to issue any
purchase orders for the rifles.” (Id. at ¶ 50). UWSI
indicates that Adams knew about the agreement between UWSI and
FAME and issued the threatening email in an effort to harm
that relationship. (Id. at ¶¶ 47-48). UWSI claims that it has
lost millions, if not billions, of dollars due to Adams’
interference. (Id. at ¶ 39). In addition, UWSI claims that
Adams misappropriated confidential information including
“UWSI’s product plans, designs, and hardware configuration” to
launch Adams’ Small Frame .308 Rifle (aka the Patrol Rifle).
(Id. at ¶¶ 62, 63).
Likewise, on October 27, 2016, Aguieus filed its
Counterclaim against Adams containing allegations akin to
those presented in UWSI’s Counterclaim and bringing the
12
following claims against Adams: breach of the Mutual
Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement (Count One);
unjust enrichment (Count Two); and breach of the Letter of
Intent (Count Three). (Doc. # 117).
At this point, Adams has filed two Motions that seek
dismissal of the Counterclaims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. ##
119, 123). Adams also asserts that certain passages in the
Counterclaims are subject to being stricken pursuant to Rule
12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Id.). Now that UWSI and Aguieus have
responded to the Motions, and the Motions are ripe for the
Court’s review. (Doc. ## 128, 131).
III. Legal Standard
A. Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
“[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to act beyond its
statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must
zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and
should itself raise the question of subject matter
jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt
about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292,
1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) may attack
13
jurisdiction facially or factually. Morrison v. Amway Corp.,
323 F.3d 920, 924 n.5 (11th Cir. 2003). When the
jurisdictional attack is factual, the Court may look outside
the four corners of the complaint to determine if jurisdiction
exists. Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 732
(11th Cir. 1982). In a factual attack, the presumption of
truthfulness afforded to a plaintiff under Rule 12(b)(6) does
not attach. Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957, 960 (11th Cir.
1999)(citing Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th
Cir. 1990)). Because the very power of the Court to hear the
case is at issue in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court is free
to weigh evidence outside the complaint. Eaton, 692 F.2d at
732.
B. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss a counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is evaluated in the same
manner as a motion to dismiss a complaint. Stewart Title
Guar. Co. v. Title Dynamics, Inc., No. 2:04-cv-316-FtM-33SPC,
2005 WL 2548419, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 11, 2005). A
counterclaim must contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all factual allegations
in the counterclaim as true and construe them in the light
14
most favorable to the counterclaim plaintiff. See United
Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2009).
“While a [counterclaim] attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations,
. . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations and quotations marks
omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true.” Id.
(internal citations omitted).
A counterclaim plaintiff must plead enough facts to state
a plausible basis for the claim. Id.; James River Ins. Co. v.
Ground Down Eng'g, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008)
(“To survive dismissal, the [counterclaim's] allegations must
plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief,
raising that possibility above a speculative level; if they do
not, the plaintiff's [counterclaim] should be dismissed.”).
Additionally, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all
of the allegations contained in a [counterclaim] is
inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
15
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662,
678 (2009).
C. Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike
Pursuant to Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., a “court may
strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." In
addition, courts are at liberty to strike material that bears
“no possible relation to the controversy, may confuse the
issues, or may cause prejudice to one of the parties.” Ayers
v. Consol. Constr. Servs. of Sw. Fla., Inc., No. 2:07-cv-123,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86596, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2007).
Although the Court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion
to strike, such motions are disfavored due to their “drastic
nature.” Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. M/Y Anastasia, No. 95-cv-
30498, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15595, at *10 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 30,
1997).
IV. Analysis
A. UWSI’s Tortious Interference Counterclaim
As noted, the Complaint and the Counterclaims have been
amended. Before the amendments, UWSI’s original Counterclaim
against Adams sought relief for tortious interference based on
Adams’ email to FAME, as well as Adams’ initiation of the
present lawsuit. (Doc. # 52). Adams filed a motion to dismiss
the tortious interference Counterclaim. (Doc. # 81). The
16
Court carefully analyzed the Counterclaim and determined that
UWSI adequately pled a claim for relief for tortious
interference based on the email. (Doc. # 94). However, the
Court found that the filing of the present lawsuit could not
form a basis for a tortious interference claim based on
Florida’s litigation privilege: “It cannot be disputed that
Adams Arms’ initiation of this suit . . . is not actionable as
tortious interference.” (Id. at 24-25). Specifically, the
Court determined:
“To prove tortious interference, Plaintiff

must show: (1) the existence of a contract or
business relationship not necessarily evidenced by
an enforceable contract under which [the plaintiff]
has rights; (2) defendants’ knowledge of the
relationship; (3) an intentional and unjustified
interference with the relationship by defendants;
and (4) damage as a result of the interference.”
Mobile Shelter Sys. USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet
Sols., LLC, 845 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 1258 (M.D. Fla.
2012).
A tortious interference claim will fail absent
“a business relationship evidenced by an actual and
identifiable understanding or agreement which in
all probability would have been completed if the
defendant had not interfered.” Ethan Allen, Inc. v.
Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812, 815 (Fla.
1994). Florida law also requires actual harm to a
business relationship, as opposed to merely a
suspicion or unsupported and speculative
supposition of harm. Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant
St. Grp., Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056, 1058 (Fla. DCA
2011).
Here, the counterclaim sufficiently alleges
each required element. UWS[I] claims that a
business relationship existed between FAME and
UWS[I] that afforded UWS[I] with existing or
prospective legal rights, that Adams Arms was aware
of that relationship, and that Adams Arms
intentionally interfered with the relationship
17
without justification, causing harm to UWS[I].

Specifically, UWS[I] claims that Adams Arms sent a
defamatory and threatening email to FAME “just as
UWS[I] and FAME were getting ready to ink the deal”
and that the email caused damage to UWS[I]. (Doc. #
90 at 3-4). UWS[I] claims that due to the email
from Adams Arms, FAME refused to issue any purchase
orders, effectively depriving UWS[I] of its
expected monetary benefits under the contract.
At this juncture, these allegations are
sufficient to withstand Adams Arms’ Motion to
Dismiss.
(Doc. # 94 at 22-23).
UWSI has not altered the substance of its tortious
interference Counterclaim since the entry of the Court’s
September 27, 2016, Order. Adams does not ask for
reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order, which upheld the
sufficiency of UWSI’s tortious interference Counterclaim.
Instead, Adams requests that the Court strike UWSI’s reference
to Adams’ filing of this lawsuit as a basis for tortious
interference. Although the Court has ruled that the filing of
the present lawsuit does not constitute an act of tortious
interference by Adams, the Court sees no reason to strike all
reference to the filing of the lawsuit from UWSI’s
Counterclaim.
UWSI’s reference to the filing of the lawsuit is not
“redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous." 12(f),
Fed. R. Civ. P. In addition, UWSI’s allegations regarding
Adams’ act of initiating the lawsuit by filing the initial
Complaint are not subject to being stricken as confusing,
18
prejudicial, or baseless. The factual allegations regarding
the filing of the lawsuit provide a temporal context for the
complex chain of events in question. Adams’ Motion to Strike
is accordingly denied with respect to UWSI’s Counterclaim for
tortious interference and specifically with respect to
allegations regarding the filing of the lawsuit. The Court
reiterates its finding that the filing of the present lawsuit
is not an appropriate basis for a tortious interference claim.
The Court is allowing UWSI to include in its Counterclaim some
allegations regarding the filing of the Complaint merely to
provide background information and temporal orientation.
B. UWSI and Aguieus’ Unjust Enrichment Counterclaims
The elements of an unjust enrichment claim are “(1) the
plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant, who had
knowledge of the benefit, (2) the defendant voluntarily
accepted and retained the benefit, and (3) under the
circumstances it would be inequitable for the defendant to
retain the benefit without paying for it.” My Classified Ads,
L.L.C. v. Greg Welteroth Holding, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-2365-T-
33AEP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31180, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 13,
2015).
UWSI and Aguieus have alleged each element and satisfy
the burden imposed by Rule 12(b)(6). Specifically, UWSI and
Aguieus claim that Adams used UWSI and Aguieus’ confidential
19
information to launch a rifle, Adams’ Patrol Rifle, for which
Adams will receive financial gain; that Adams voluntarily
accepted and retained the benefit of the confidential
information; and that Adams has been enriched at the expense
of UWSI and Aguieus. UWSI and Aguieus also allege that the
circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for Adams
to retain the benefit of the confidential information without
paying for it. See (Doc. # 109 at ¶¶ 67-70; Doc. # 117 at ¶¶
28-31). Although UWSI and Aguieus have provided a concise
outline of their respective unjust enrichment Counterclaims,
Adams seeks dismissal because these claims lack “requite [sic]
particularity.” (Doc. # 119 at 14; Doc. # 123 at 5).
The Court denies the Motion because the Counterclaims are
more than sufficient to place Adams on notice of the conduct
in question. In fact, Adams, in presenting its Motions to
Dismiss, was able to succinctly distill the unjust enrichment
Counterclaims as follows: “AA breached the nondisclosure
agreement and was unjustly enriched when it utilized [the]
confidential information for AA’s own commercial gain in
bringing a new product to market (a .308 [Patrol] rifle), a
different product from those discussed in the letter of intent
(a 5.56 and a 7.62 rifle).” (Doc. # 119 at 14; Doc. # 123 at
5). As such, the Court denies the Motions to Dismiss to the
extent they are aimed at the unjust enrichment Counterclaims.
20
C. UWSI and Aguieus’ Breach of Contract Counterclaims
1. Standing
Adams seeks an order dismissing Counts Two (breach of
Letter of Intent) and Three (breach of Mutual Confidentiality
and Nondisclosure Agreement) of UWSI’s Counterclaim for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.
R. Civ. P. However, rather than claiming that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over UWSI’s relevant
Counterclaims, Adams argues that UWSI does not have standing
to sue Adams for breach of the Letter of Intent and of the
Mutual Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement. Adams
also contends that Aguieus lacks standing to sue for a breach
of the Letter of Intent because it is not a party to that
contract.
Just as it was necessary to draw upon the Court’s prior
Order to address Adams’ Motion to Dismiss UWSI’s tortious
interference Counterclaim, the Court must once again look back
to the prior Order to assess whether it is appropriate to
dismiss any breach of contract Counterclaims. Previously,
UWSI sought dismissal of Adams’ breach of contract claim by
arguing that UWSI was not a party to the contract. The Court
however, denied UWSI’s motion to dismiss. Based on the
Court’s ruling, UWSI sought leave to amend its Counterclaim to
add a claim for breach of contract. As explained by UWSI:
21
UWSI amended its Counterclaim to add counts for

breach of the LOI and NDA in the event this Court
ultimately finds that UWSI is a party to those
agreements, as pled and argued by Adams and given
this Court’s rejection of UWSI’s argument to the
contrary in its motion to dismiss. . . . If UWSI is
held to be a party, then it certainly has the
right to bring its own claims under those
agreements. . . . Adams cannot have it both ways.
It cannot claim that UWSI is a party for purposes
of Adams’ claims against UWSI, but not a party for
purposes of UWSI’s counterclaims against Adams.
(Doc. # 128 at 10-11)(emphasis in original). Adams’ subject
matter jurisdiction and standing arguments miss the mark to
the extent such arguments are focused on UWSI. Adams has
taken the position that Adams and UWSI are parties to various
contracts and that UWSI breached those contracts in myriad
ways. UWSI contends that, if it is a party to the contracts,
it was Adams that breached the contracts, not UWSI. Surely if
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Adams’ breach
of contract claims with UWSI as a Defendant, the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over UWSI’s Counterclaims with
Adams as a Counterclaim Defendant.
The same cannot be said for Aguieus, however, in regards
to the Letter of Intent.3 Adams correctly points out that
3
In contrast, Aguieus does specifically allege that it
is a contracting party to the Mutual Confidentiality and
Nondisclosure Agreement. (Doc. # 117 at ¶ 21). At the Motion
to Dismiss stage, the Court accepts this allegation as true.
Furthermore, Aguieus attaches an executed copy of the Mutual
Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement to the
Counterclaim and Aguieus is named as the “Receiving Party” on
the executed Agreement. (Doc. # 117-2 at 4).
22
Aguieus never alleged in its Counterclaim that it is a party
to the Letter of Intent. And, Adams sued UWSI for breach of
the Letter of Intent, not Aguieus. The Letter of Intent
states that UWSI is partially owned by Aguieus, but the Letter
of Intent does not reflect that Aguieus is a contracting
party. Rather, the Letter of Intent is “between Unified
Weapon Systems (‘Buyer’) and Adams Arms (‘Seller’).” (Doc. #
117-3 at 1)(emphasis in original). Aguieus alleges in Count
Three:
On April 29, 2014, [Adams] executed and delivered a

LOI. Pursuant to the LOI, [Adams] was to deliver
three orders of the Rifles on or before September
1, 2014. [Adams] failed to timely deliver the
Rifles as required by the LOI. [Adams] failed to
deliver a single prototype . . . by September 1,
2014. As a direct result of [Adams’] failure to
timely deliver the Rifles, the opportunity to
secure a contract with the MOD for the MOD Project
was lost. [Adams] materially breached the LOI by
failing to deliver the Rifles before September 1,
2014, and damage has been caused by [Adams’] breach
of the LOI.
(Doc. # 117 at ¶¶ 32-37). These allegations do not support
Augieus’ claim against Adams for breach of the Letter of
Intent because Aguieus never alleged that it is a party to the
contract or that it is otherwise in privity. “It is hornbook
law that privity of contract ‘is essential to the maintenance
of an action on any contract.’” Katchmore Luhrs, LLC v.
Allianz Global Corp. & Speciality, No. 15-cv-23420, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13778, at *14 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2017) (citing
23
Sumitomo Corp. of Am. v. M/V Saint Venture, 683 F. Supp. 1361,
1369 (M.D. Fla. 1988)). In addition, “[g]enerally, a contract
does not bind one who is not a party to the contract” and
“[u]nder Florida law, corporations are separate legal
entities, and contracts made by a parent corporation do not
bind a subsidiary.” Whetstone Candy Co., Inc. v. Kraft Foods,
Inc., 351 F.3d 1067, 1072-74 (11th Cir. 2003). The Court
accordingly grants Adams’ Motion to Dismiss to the extent that
Motion targets Count Three of Aguieus’ Counterclaim, for
breach of the Letter of Intent. However, the Court grants
Aguieus the opportunity to amend its Counterclaim in light of
the recent filing of the Cross-claim, which effectively
shuffles the deck regarding corporate identities, ownership,
and alliances in this case. Any amendment to Aguieus’
Counterclaim must be filed by February 21, 2017.
2. Rule 12(b)(6) Breach of Contact Analysis
The Court has determined that UWSI has standing to sue
Adams for breach of the Letter of Intent and that both UWSI
and Aguieus have standing to sue Adams for breach of the
Mutual Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement. The Court
now addresses whether UWSI and Aguieus state a claim for
breach of these agreements.
The elements of a breach of contract action are “(1) the
existence of a contract, (2) a breach of the contract, and (3)
24
damages resulting from the breach.” Rollins, Inc. v. Butland,
951 So. 2d 860, 876 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2006). In the
Counterclaims, UWSI and Aguieus allege that the Letter of
Intent and the Mutual Confidentiality and Nondisclosure
Agreement are contracts, that Adams breached the contracts,
and that UWSI and Augieus suffered damages as a result. (Doc.
# 109 at ¶¶ 57-64; Doc. # 117 at ¶¶ 21-26).
Adams’ arguments that the relevant breach of contract
Counterclaims lack specificity are unavailing. For instance,
Adams argues: “Nothing indicates when the confidential
information was disclosed or whether the information was
conveyed in person, by phone, or through electronic
transmission. . . . [the] conclusory assertions . . . do not
answer such basic questions as who, what, when, or how.” (Doc.
# 123 at 7). However, none of the Counterclaims allege fraud,
which would require such a greater specificity under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 9(b). The allegations in the questioned Counterclaims
accusing Adams of wrongfully using UWSI and Aguieus’
confidential information to create the Patrol Rifle are
sufficient to place Adams on notice regarding the nature of
the claims. As argued by Aguieus:
Count 1 of Aguieus’s Counterclaim alleges that

[Adams] breached the [Mutual Confidentiality and
Nondisclosure Agreement] by using Aguieus’
disclosed Confidential Information (a term
specifically defined in Paragraph 7 of the
Counterclaim and Section 1 of the [Mutual
25
Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement]),

including product plans, designs, and hardware
configuration information, to launch [Adams’] Small
Frame .308 Rifle (aka-Patrol Rifle), and that
Aguieus has been damaged as a result. No further
“particularity” is required for a breach of
contract claim.
(Doc. # 131 at 6).
Adams does not agree with the factual allegations leveled
by UWSI and Aguieus, but that is a matter for a later
determination by a fact-finder, not for disposition on a
Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Strike. The relevant breach of
contract Counterclaims contain more than sufficiently detailed
factual allegations to place Adams on notice regarding the
alleged breaches. The Court accordingly denies Adams’ Motion
to Dismiss UWSI and Aguieus’ Counterclaims for breach of the
Mutual Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement and UWSI’s
Counterclaim for breach of the Letter of Intent.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Adams Arms, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss or Strike Unified
Weapons Systems, Inc.’s First Amended Counterclaim (Doc.
# 119) is DENIED.
(2) Adams Arms’ Motion to Dismiss Aguieus, LLC’s Counterclaim
(Doc. # 123) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that
Aguieus’ Counterclaim for breach of the Letter of Intent
is dismissed with leave to amend by February 21, 2017.
26
The Motion is otherwise DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 8th
day of February, 2017.
27
Case 3:16-cv-03737-JCS Document 40 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 16
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S. INC., et
7 al., Case No. 16-cv-03737-JCS
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
9 v. DISMISS
10 NANOPRECISION PRODUCTS, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 29
11 Defendant.
12
Northern District of California
United States District Court
13 I. INTRODUCTION
14 In this action, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendants Avago Technologies U.S., Inc., Avago
15 Technologies General IP (Singapore), PTE, Ltd., and Laurence McColloch (collectively,
16 ―Avago‖) seek a declaratory judgment of correct inventorship. Counterclaimants nanoPrecision
17 Products, Inc., Michael K. Barnoski, Robert R. Vallance, Shuhe Li and King-Fu Hii (collectively,
18 ―nPP‖) have, in turn, asserted eight Counterclaims against Avago in their Answer and
19 Counterclaim. Presently before the Court is Avago‘s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaimants‘ First
20 through Sixth Counterclaims (―Motion‖). The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for
21 determination on the papers pursuant Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the
22 Motion is GRANTED.1
23 II. BACKGROUND
24 A. Factual Background
25 Avago is a global supplier of ―fiber optic communications modules used in optical
26 networks for transmitting and receiving optical data signals.‖ First Amended Complaint (―FAC‖)
27
1
28 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
1 ¶ 14; see also Answer ¶ 14. 2 During the relevant time period, Lawrence McColloch was
2 employed as an engineer at Avago. FAC ¶ 15; Answer ¶ 15. According to Avago, McColloch‘s
3 work at Avago had included the design and manufacture of fiber optic communications modules
4 and for many years he had been working on developing the design of single mode optical benches.
5 FAC ¶ 16.
6 nPP alleges that it is a ―world leader in the field of complex material forming with
7 nanometer accuracies and tolerances.‖ Counterclaim ¶ 2. According to nPP, it developed a
8 ―proprietary manufacturing process,‖ including a ―proprietary stamping processes that can
9 produce a variety of 3D components made of metals such as Kovar, stainless steel, aluminum,
10 copper, or titanium.‖ Id. In July of 2010, nPP began communicating with Avago Technologies
11 regarding nPP‘s capabilities to precision stamp various components for fiber optic applications,
12 including optical benches. Id. ¶ 13. On July 16, 2012, after Avago and nPP had entered into a
13 non-disclosure agreement (―NDA‖), representatives of nPP and Avago Technologies had their first
14 in-person meeting. Id. ¶ 15. McColloch was one of the individuals who attended this meeting for
15 Avago. Id.
16 According to Avago, at the July 16, 2010 meeting McColloch shared his optical bench
17 design that could be manufactured by a stamping process with nPP. FAC ¶ 21. nPP, in turn, made
18 a presentation about its precision metal stamping capabilities. Id. ¶ 20. nPP alleges that it
19 disclosed confidential and proprietary information about its stamping process, answering many
20 questions from McColloch, who allegedly ―stated that he was unaware of the possibility of using a
21 stamped bench in place of a silicon bench in such optoelectronic applications.‖ Counterclaim ¶ 16.
22 Avago, on the other hand, alleges that ―McColloch had first considered making a stamped optics
23 for fiber optic use as early as in 2001 and was first exposed to the idea of stamping optics as early
24 as 1983.‖ FAC ¶ 17.
25 Avago and nPP continued to communicate about the possibility of working together and a
26
27 2
nPP‘s Answer and Counterclaim is a single document. See Docket No. 23. The Court cites
28 separately to the ―Answer‖ or the ―Counterclaim‖ only to indicate the section of the document to
which it refers as the paragraphs are separately numbered in the two sections.
2
1 number of meetings were held between July 2016 and May 30, 2012. Counterclaim ¶¶ 19-41.
2 nPP alleges that during this period it sent confidential and proprietary bench designs and
3 PowerPoint slides to Avago and that it prepared ―solid models‖ as well. Id. Avago, in turn,
4 alleges that McColloch shared with nPP . . . several of his proposed stamped optical bench designs
5 during the course of these meetings and communications. FAC ¶ 22. According to nPP, the
6 parties entered into a second non-disclosure agreement on May 30, 2012 due to nPP‘s concern that
7 the first one had expired. Counterclaim ¶ 38. In the end, the parties did not enter into an
8 agreement; instead, on July 24, 2012, Avago informed nPP that ―there would be no deal.‖ Id. ¶
9 42.
10 While the discussions with nPP were still underway, on December 19, 2011, McColloch
11 filed U.S. Patent Application No. 13/329,380 entitled ―Modified Transistor Outline (TO)-CAN
12 Assembly for Use in Optical Communications and a Method‖ (―the ‘380 Application‖) and
13 assigned ownership thereof to Avago IP. FAC ¶ 25 & Ex. 1 (‘025 Patent). The ‘380 Application,
14 issued as United States Patent No. 9,011,025 (―the ‘025 Patent‖) on April 21, 2015 and lists a prior
15 publication date of June 20, 2013. FAC, Ex. 1.
16 On October 23, 2012, McColloch filed U.S. Patent Application No. 13/658,379 entitled
17 Stamped Metal Optic for Use in an Optical Communications Module (―the ‘379 Application‖) and
18 assigned ownership thereof to Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD. FAC ¶ 23
19 & Ex. 4 (‘379 Application). On April 24, 2014, the USPTO published the ‘379 Application. Id.
20 According to Avago, the ‘379 Application claims stamped optical bench designs, some of which
21 McColloch had disclosed to nPP during the course of the parties‘ business discussions under the
22 NDA, but it also contained embodiments of stamped optical benches that were not disclosed to
23 nPP during those discussions. Id.
24 On March 24, 2015, Avago filed U.S. Patent Application 14/666,427 (―the ‘427
25 Application‖), which is a continuation of the ‘380 Application. FAC ¶ 26. While the claims of the
26 ‘427 Application were new, the specification was identical to the specification of the ‘380
27 Application. On July 9, 2015, the USPTO published the ‘427 Application, and it issued as the
28 ‘360 Patent on July 26, 2016. FAC, Ex. 2.

3
1 nPP contends all three applications – the ‘379 Application, the ‘380 Application and the
2 the ‘427 Application (collectively, the ―Avago Applications‖) – used the confidential and
3 proprietary information that it disclosed to Avago under the NDAs. See generally Counterclaim.
4 On February 19, 2015, nPP filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
5 California in Santa Clara County (―the State Court Action‖) against Avago; it filed a First
6 Amended Complaint on April 9, 2015 alleging breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation
7 under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (―CUTSA‖), intentional interference with
8 contractual relations, unfair competition, conversion, specific recovery, breach of fiduciary duty,
9 unjust enrichment, fraud, and declaratory relief. See Ratinoff Decl., Ex. 2 (State Court Action
10 FAC).3
11 On April 23, 2015, nPP filed a patent application entitled ―Coupling Device Having a
12 Stamped Structured Surface for Routing Optical Data Signals‖ and was assigned U.S. Patent
13 Application No. 14/695,008 (―the ‘008 Application‖). FAC ¶ 31. Avago alleges that nPP used
14 inventions that were previously disclosed in Avago‘s ‘379 Application to prepare the ‘008
15 Application. Id. nPP, on the other hand, contends the ‘379 Application discloses inventions by
16 nPP employees, not McColloch. Therefore, on April 24, 2015, nPP sought to initiate a derivation
17 proceeding to correct the listing of named inventors on Avago‘s ‘379 Application by filing a
18 Petition to Institute Derivation Proceeding with the USTPO. Ratinoff Decl., Ex. 1. That petition
19 is still pending.
20 In the meantime, the State Court Action went forward and on April 1, 2016 the Superior
21 Court granted in part Avago‘s demurrer, finding that six of nPP‘s claims, including its claims for
22 conversion and specific recovery of personal property, were preempted by the CUTSA. Ratinoff
23 Decl., Ex. 3 at 6-11. The State Court permitted nPP to amend its complaint to include allegations
24 to show, if it could, that the dismissed claims were not preempted and on May 2, 2016, nPP filed a
25 second amended complaint in the State Court Action that again included claims for conversion
26
27 3
Avago requests that the Court take judicial notice of the pleadings in the State Court Action as
28 well as documents of public record filed in or issued by the United States Patent Office. See
Docket Nos. 29-7, 35-6. nPP has not objected to these requests, which are GRANTED.
4
1 and specific recovery of personal property. Ratinoff Decl., Ex. 4. Avago filed another demurrer,
2 which was set to be heard on January 27, 2017. On December 13, 2016, however, the parties
3 entered into a stipulation pursuant to which nPP agreed to seek a stay of the State Court Action if
4 this Court agreed to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counterclaims that nPP
5 asserted in the instant action in its October 17, 2016 Answer and Counterclaim (Docket No. 23).
6 Under the stipulation, Avago also agreed to withdraw its argument that this Court should dismiss
7 Counterclaims One through Five under the Colorado River doctrine because they are identical to
8 claims previously asserted by nPP and still pending in the State Court Action. The Court
9 approved that stipulation on December 15, 2016. See Docket No. 37.
10 B. The Instant Action and nPP’s Counterclaims

11 Avago initiated this action on July 1, 2016, seeking a declaratory judgment of correct
12 inventorship of the ‘025 Patent. Complaint. After the ‘360 Patent issued, on July 26, 2016,
13 Avago filed its First Amended Complaint to seek the same relief as to that patent as well. See
14 Docket No. 15.
15 nPP filed its Answer and Counterclaim on October 17, 2017. In the Counterclaim, nPP
16 alleges that ―Avago IP and McColloch brazenly used nPP‘s proprietary and confidential
17 information as the primary basis to prepare the [‘379 Application].‖ Counterclaim ¶ 44. In
18 particular, nPP alleges:
19 [The ‘379 Application] included the concepts developed by nPP and

provided to McColloch and Avago Technologies under the NDA,
20 which were clearly marked and identified as confidential and
proprietary to nPP including: a stamped bench with a curved mirror
21 or a flat mirror, a fiducial for a pick-and-place operations with visual
alignment, gussets for structural integrity of the mirror surface,
22 pockets for locating a ball lens, and pockets with alignment edges
for accurately locating electro-optical chips such as edge-emitting
23 lasers or photodiodes.
24 Id. ¶ 45. nPP alleges that further disclosures of its confidential and proprietary information were
25 made by Avago and McColloch during the prosecution of the ‘379 Application. Id. ¶ 48 (―This
26 continued prosecution evidences further misappropriation, disclosure, and use of nPP confidential
27 and proprietary information by Avago Technologies and McColloch.‖).
28 nPP made similar allegations about the applications that led to the ‘025 Patent and the
5
1 ‘360 Patent, the ‘380 Application and the ‘427 Application, respectively. Counterclaim ¶ 50.
2 Specifically, nPP alleges:
3 These two applications included the concepts developed by nPP and

provided to McColloch and Avago Technologies under the NDA,
4 which were clearly marked and identified as confidential and
proprietary to nPP including a fiber optic connector component with
5 an opening at its side wall for receiving a portion of an optical fiber
at a non-zero degree angle α, relative to an axis that is generally
6 normal to a printed circuit board, with a groove formed in it for
accepting a portion of the optical fiber, with a reflector (mirror) that
7 folds an optical pathway by the angle α, and with a recess formed
adjacent to an end of the groove, wherein the reflector is disposed
8 opposite the end of the groove.
9 Id.
10 The Counterclaim asserts the following causes of action: 1) breach of contract; 2)
11 misappropriation of trade secrets under the CUTSA; 3) conversion; 4) specific recovery of
12 personal property; 5) declaratory relief; 6) trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade
13 Secrets Act of 2016 (―DTSA‖), 18 U.S.C. § 1836; 7) correction of named inventor on ‘025 Patent;
14 and 8) correction of named inventor on ‘360 Patent.
15 In Claim Three, for conversion, nPP incorporates all of the preceding allegations in the
16 Counterclaim. Id. ¶ 66. It goes on to allege:
17 nPP is the owner of the confidential and proprietary information

provided to McColloch and Avago Technologies under the NDA
18 and NDA II as set forth above. As alleged above, Avago
Technologies is in possession of nPP‘s materials, documents, files,
19 and models marked confidential and proprietary and disclosed under
the NDA and NDA II. nPP is entitled to possession of such withheld
20 confidential and proprietary property provided under the NDA or
NDA II.
21
Id. ¶ 67. nPP alleges that it has ―demanded return of its property by asking for the return of
22
confidential materials, documents, files, and models‖ disclosed to Avago and that it has
23
suffered and continues to suffer damage as a result of Avago‘s ―improper possession, use, and
24
publication of its confidential and proprietary property.‖ Id. ¶ 69-70.
25
In Claim Four, for specific recovery of personal property, nPP incorporates all of the
26
preceding allegations of the Counterclaim, including the allegations in the conversion claim. Id. ¶
27
71. It further alleges:
28
6
nPP is the owner of the confidential and proprietary information

1 provided to McColloch and Avago Technologies under the NDA
and NDA II as set forth above. As alleged above, Avago
2 Technologies generally and Avago IP in particular are in wrongful
possession of nPP‘s materials, documents, files, and models marked
3 confidential and proprietary and disclosed under the NDA and NDA
II. nPP is entitled to possession of such withheld confidential and
4 proprietary property.
5 Id. ¶ 72. nPP goes on to allege that ―Avago Technologies generally and Avago IP in particular
6 have improperly taken nPP‘s property, without nPP‘s consent, in the form of improperly withheld
7 materials, documents, files, and models‖ and that ―[t]he confidential and proprietary physical
8 property taken by Avago Technologies generally and Avago IP in particular is very valuable.‖ Id.
9 ¶¶ 73-74.
10 In Claim Six, for trade secret misappropriation under DTSA, nPP incorporates all the
11 preceding allegations of the Counterclaim. Id. ¶ 80. It further alleges in support of the claim that
12 Avago ―acquired nPP‘s confidential and proprietary trade secret information pursuant to the NDA
13 and NDA II‖ and that Avago ―without the express or implied consent of nPP, took nPP‘s
14 confidential and proprietary information and included it in the Avago Applications naming
15 McColloch as the inventor.‖ Id. ¶¶ 83-84. nPP goes on to allege the following specific
16 violations:
17 Avago Technologies, without the express or implied consent of nPP,
took nPP‘s confidential and proprietary information and included it
18 in the Avago Applications naming McColloch as the inventor. The
Avago Applications disclosed such information to the world when
19 the applications were published and again when the ‘025 Patent
issued, destroying the confidentiality and secrecy of the information
20 provided under the NDA and NDA II. Avago again disclosed such
information to the world by its continued prosecution of the Avago
21 Applications, including, publicly filing the Appeal Brief at the PTO
on July 5, 2016, and causing the ‘360 Patent to issue and publish on
22 July 26, 2016.
Id. ¶ 84.
23
24 C. The Motion
In the Motion, Avago asserts Claims Three and Four should be dismissed because they are
25
preempted by the CUTSA. It further argues that these claims should be dismissed without leave to
26
amend because nPP was already given an opportunity to amend them in the State Court Action
27
and failed to fix the problem relating to CUTSA preemption. Avago also challenges Claim Four
28
7
1 on the basis that specific recovery of personal property is merely a remedy and not a separate
2 claim. Avago seeks dismissal of Claim Six, under DTSA, on the basis that all of the relevant
3 conduct alleged in support of that claim occurred before DTSA came into effect, on May 11, 2016.
4 nPP counters that the allegations supporting its claims for conversion and specific recovery
5 of personal property are sufficient to avoid CUTSA preemption, at least at the pleading stage of
6 the case. It also argues that California law supports the conclusion that specific recovery of
7 personal property may be asserted as a claim in its own right. It further contends its DTSA claim is
8 premised, at least in part, on conduct that occurred after May 11, 2016 and therefore, that that
9 claim should not be dismissed.
10 III. ANALYSIS
11 A. Legal Standard under Rule 12(b)(6)
12 A complaint (or here, counterclaim) may be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which
13 relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ―The purpose
14 of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.‖ N.
15 Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Generally, a claimant‘s
16 burden at the pleading stage is relatively light. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
17 states that ―[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain . . . a short and plain
18 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
19 In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court takes ―all allegations of
20 material fact as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.‖
21 Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Dismissal may be based on a
22 lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of facts that would support a valid theory.
23 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A pleading must ―contain
24 either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain
25 recovery under some viable legal theory.‖ Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562 (2007)
26 (citing Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984)). ―A pleading
27 that offers ‗labels and conclusions‘ or ‗a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
28 will not do.‘‖ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
8
1 ―[C]ourts ‗are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.‘‖
2 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). ―Nor does a
3 [pleading] suffice if it tenders ‗naked assertion[s]‘ devoid of ‗further factual enhancement.‘‖ Iqbal,
4 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Rather, the claim must be ―‗plausible on its
5 face,‘‖ meaning that the claimant must plead sufficient factual allegations to ―allow[] the court to
6 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.‖ Id. (quoting
7 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
8 B. CUTSA Preemption
9 1. The CUTSA
10 The CUTSA is codified in sections 3426 through 3426.11 of the California Civil Code. It
11 contains a ―savings clause‖ that provides, in relevant part, that the CUTSA ―does not affect (1)
12 contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, [or] (2) other
13 civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret . . . .‖ Cal. Civ. Code §
14 3426.7(b). Based on the CUTSA‘s ―comprehensive structure and breadth,‖ California courts and
15 federal courts applying California law have found that ―section 3426.7, subdivision (b), preempts
16 common law claims that are ‗based on the same nucleus of facts as the misappropriation of trade
17 secrets claim for relief.‘‖ Id. (quoting Digital Envoy, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 370 F.Supp.2d 1025,
18 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see also Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal. App. 4th 210, 236
19 (2010), as modified on denial of reh‘g (May 27, 2010), disapproved of on other grounds by
20 Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011)) (―CUTSA provides the exclusive civil
21 remedy for conduct falling within its terms, so as to supersede other civil remedies ‗based upon
22 misappropriation of a trade secret‘‖) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7(b)).
23 Courts in this District have concluded, based on the Silvaco decision, that CUTSA
24 preemption extends to claims based on the misappropriation of confidential and proprietary
25 information, regardless of whether it qualifies as a ―trade secret.‖ See SunPower Corp. v.
26 SolarCity Corp., No. 12-CV-00694-LHK, 2012 WL 6160472, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2012)
27 (―absent ‗convincing evidence that‘ the California Supreme Court ‗would decide [this issue]
28 differently,‘ this Court believes it prudent to follow Silvaco‖); Heller v. Cepia, L.L.C., No. C 11-
9
1 01146 JSW, 2012 WL 13572, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012), aff‘d in part, 560 F. App‘x 678 (9th
2 Cir. 2014) (―Silvaco also made clear that common law claims premised on the wrongful taking of
3 information that does not qualify as a trade secret are also superseded, unless the plaintiff
4 identifies some law which confers property rights protecting the information‖); Mattel, Inc. v.
5 MGA Entertainment, Inc., 782 F.Supp.2d 911, 987 (C.D.Cal.2011) (―UTSA supersedes claims
6 based on the misappropriation of confidential information, whether or not that information meets
7 the statutory definition of a trade secret‖).
8 In Silvaco, the California Court of Appeal expressed disapproval of a decision by a
9 Pennsylvania district court in which that court declined to dismiss a claim for conversion on the
10 basis of preemption under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act because it was ―yet to be
11 determined whether the information at issue constitutes a trade secret.‖ Silvaco, 184 Cal. App.
12 4th at 239 n. 22; Cenveo Corp. v. Slater, No. CIV A 06-CV-2632, 2007 WL 527720, at *3 (E.D.
13 Pa. Feb. 12, 2007). The Silvaco court opined:
14 We emphatically reject the Cenveo court‘s suggestion that the

uniform act was not intended to preempt ―common law conversion
15 claims based on the taking of information that, though not a trade
secret, was nonetheless of value to the claimant.‖ . . . On the
16 contrary, a prime purpose of the law was to sweep away the
adopting states‘ bewildering web of rules and rationales and replace
17 it with a uniform set of principles for determining when one is—and
is not—liable for acquiring, disclosing, or using ―information . . . of
18 value.‖ . . . Central to the effort was the act‘s definition of a trade
secret. . . . Information that does not fit this definition, and is not
19 otherwise made property by some provision of positive law, belongs
to no one, and cannot be converted or stolen. By permitting the
20 conversion claim to proceed on a contrary rationale, the Cenveo
court impliedly created a new category of intellectual property far
21 beyond the contemplation of the Act, subsuming its definition of
―trade secret‖ and effectively obliterating the uniform system it
22 seeks to generate.
23 184 Cal. App. 4th at 239 n. 22. (2010). As Judge Koh noted in SunPower, ―an argument could be
24 made that the footnote [in Silvaco] is dicta as . . .there does not actually appear to have been any
25 allegation by plaintiff that the information plaintiff was seeking to protect was not a trade secret
26 and therefore not subject to trade secret law.‖ Sunpower, 2012 WL 6160472, at *6 (citing
27 Silvaco,184 Cal.App.4th at 239, where the Silvaco court stated that ―[a]ll of [plaintiff‘s] claims,
28 except its UCL claim . . . depend on [defendant‘s] supposed use, in [plaintiff‘s] words of ‗software
10
1 . . . which embodies and uses . . . [plaintiff‘s] Trade Secrets.‘‖). Nonetheless, the undersigned
2 finds that the reasoning of Sunpower is persuasive and therefore concludes that Silvaco should be
3 followed on this question.
4 2. Claim Three (Conversion)

5 A claim for conversion must be based on ―an actual interference with [the plaintiff‘s]
6 ownership or right of possession.‖ Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 51 Cal. 3d 120, 136 (1990).
7 Conversion ―traditionally required a taking of tangible property, and thus was not available to
8 remedy the misappropriation of something like a trade secret.‖ Silvaco, 184 Cal. App. 4th at 239.
9 To establish a claim of conversion, the plaintiff must show ―(1) the plaintiff‘s ownership or right
10 to possession of the property; (2) the defendant‘s conversion by wrongful act inconsistent with the
11 property rights of the plaintiff; and (3) damages.‖ In re Emery, 317 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir.
12 2003) (citing Burlesci v. Petersen, 68 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1065 (1998)).
13 Under Silvaco, if the only property identified in the complaint is confidential or
14 proprietary information, and the only basis for any property right is trade secrets law, then a
15 conversion claim predicated on the theft of that property is preempted. See Language Line Servs.,
16 Inc. v. Language Servs. Assocs., Inc., 944 F. Supp. 2d 775, 780 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Silvaco,
17 184 Cal. App. 4th at 238). Courts in this District have found that this rule applies even if the
18 information at issue is embodied in tangible property such as documents, computer disks or
19 physical models, unless these physical objects have ―some value apart from the information they
20 embod[y].‖ Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm't, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911, 997 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (holding
21 that conversion claim ―predicated upon the physical documents allegedly misappropriated by [the
22 defendant] [was preempted by CUTSA] because [the defendant] [could not] show that the
23 documents had any value ‗apart from the information contained therein.‘‖)(citing Thomas & Betts
24 Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 108 F.Supp.2d 968, 973 (N.D. Ill.2000)); see also MedioStream, Inc. v.
25 Microsoft Corp., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (dismissing conversion claim at the
26 pleading stage on basis of CUTSA preemption where plaintiff alleged that defendants ―took and/or
27 permitted to be taken . . . certain documents and data and computer data discs that contain or
28 reference Plaintiff‘s Trade Secrets and other confidential and proprietary information,‖ reasoning
11
1 that the plaintiff did not identify any specific property or ―make any attempt to distinguish it from
2 the trade secret material‖ identified in the complaint).
3 Here, Plaintiff has not identified in its conversion claim, or indeed, in the Counterclaim as
4 a whole, any specific property that has value apart from the confidential information it contains.
5 To the contrary, the allegations in the conversion claim identify the property that nPP seeks
6 entirely with reference to the confidential information contained therein. See Counterclaim ¶¶ 66-
7 67 (alleging that ―nPP is the owner of the confidential and proprietary information provided to
8 McColloch and Avago Technologies‖ under NDAs between Avago and nPP and that ―Avago
9 Technologies is in possession of nPP‘s materials, documents, files, and models marked
10 confidential and proprietary and disclosed‖ under the NDAs and ―is entitled to possession of such
11 withheld confidential and proprietary property . . . .‖). nPP may not evade CUTSA preemption
12 simply by alleging that the confidential information at issue was written on a piece of paper or
13 embodied in a model where there are no allegations suggesting that the tangible property described
14 in the Counterclaim had any value apart from the confidential information disclosed in it.
15 Therefore, the Court concludes that nPP‘s conversion claim, as currently alleged, is preempted by
16 the CUTSA.
17 The Court rejects nPP‘s reliance on Angelica Textile Servs. Inc. v. Park, 220 Cal. App. 4th
18 495 (2013) for a contrary conclusion. In that case, the court of appeal upheld a jury verdict in
19 favor of the plaintiff on a conversion claim where the defendant had ―retained thousands of pages
20 of documents‖ that the plaintiff owned. 220 Cal. App. 4th at 499. The jury also found that the
21 defendant had not stolen any trade secrets. Id. The court held that ―[a]lthough the documents may
22 have little if any value in light of the jury‘s finding defendants did not appropriate any trade
23 secrets, the defendant employee‘s possession of them will support a conversion claim independent
24 of any trade secret.‖ Id. The court in that case concluded that ―because the asserted claim is not
25 based on the existence of a trade secret, it was not displaced,‖ citing Silvaco. The Angelica court
26 did not directly address the question of whether of claim for conversion that alleges no facts
27 showing that the physical objects at issue have independent value should be allowed to proceed.
28 At least one federal district court has concluded that Angelica ―did not hold that tangible
12
1 personal property automatically confers a separate property right that cannot be preempted.‖ TMC
2 Aerospace, Inc. v. Elbit Sys. of Am. LLC, No. CV 15-07595-AB (EX), 2016 WL 3475322, at *7
3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016). The court in TMC concluded instead that ―the court‘s holding in
4 Angelica comports with the holding in Silvaco Data Systems – namely, that a common law claim
5 survives preemption if its property interest is not rooted in the property‘s status as a trade secret.‖
6 Id. (citing184 Cal. App. 4th at 238). Thus, in TMC, the court dismissed the plaintiff‘s conversion
7 claim on the pleadings based on CUTSA preemption because the ―allegations demonstrate[d] that
8 the entire basis of [the plaintiff‘s conversion claim [was] [the defendant‘s] use of the same
9 ‗proprietary design drawings, manufacturing techniques, and manufacturing equipment including
10 moulds and jigs‘ that Plaintiff defined as its protectable trade secrets.‖ Id. at t *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
11 29, 2016). The undersigned agrees with the reasoning of TMC and reaches the same conclusion
12 here. 4
13 The Court also rejects nPP‘s reliance on Loop AI Labs Inc v. Gatti, No. 15-CV-00798-
14 HSG, 2015 WL 5158461, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015). In that case, the court found that a
15 conversion claim was adequately alleged and was not preempted where it was based on the
16 allegation that the defendant had stolen a particular piece of property, namely, the plaintiff‘s
17 ―work computer.‖ Id. at *3. The court therefore concluded that the claim for conversion was
18 ―fundamentally different than the conversion claim at issue in Sunpower.‖ Id. In Sunpower, the
19 court explained, ―the plaintiff alleged a conversion claim arising from the same allegations of
20 misappropriation that underlay its CUTSA claim.‖ Id. (citing 2012 WL 6160472 at *13).
21 This case is more like Sunpower than Loop; the only materials described in the
22 Counterclaim are identified only generally as the confidential and proprietary materials that were
23 provided to Avago under NDAs between Avago and nPP. See Counterclaim ¶¶ 50, 65, 66-67.
24 These materials are the basis for both nPP‘s CUTSA Claim (Counterclaim Two) and its
25
4
26 The Court also notes that to the extent Angelica might be read to suggest that a plaintiff can
avoid CUTSA preemption of a conversion claim simply by alleging that documents were taken,
27 without any allegation that those documents had independent value, the Court finds that
conclusion to be inconsistent with California law as set forth in Silvaco and the cases that have
28 applied the holding of Silvaco in connection with conversion claims involving documents and
other physical embodiments of confidential information, such as Mattel, MedioStream and TMC.
13
1 conversion claim (Counterclaim Three). The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from
2 nPP‘s allegations is that the property right at issue in the conversion claim derives from the
3 confidential nature of the information contained in the materials nPP provided to Avago. In
4 contrast to Loop, where a reasonable inference could be drawn that the tangible property at issue –
5 a computer – had independent value apart from the confidential information it contained, there is
6 no such allegation here.
7 Accordingly, the Court concludes that nPP‘s conversion claim, as currently alleged, is
8 preempted by CUTSA and is subject to dismissal. Although Avago asks the Court to dismiss
9 nPP‘s conversion claim with prejudice on the ground that the State Court previously dismissed the
10 conversion claim on similar grounds, the undersigned declines to do so. Rather, nPP will be given
11 an opportunity to amend its conversion claim to address the specific deficiencies that this Court
12 has identified.
13 3. Claim Four (Specific Recovery of Personal Property)

14 Specific recovery of personal property is a remedy for conversion. See State Farm Mut.
15 Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 53 Cal. App. 4th 1076, 1082 (1997); Fuhu, Inc. v. Toys
16 “R” US, Inc., No. 12CV2308-WQH-WVG, 2013 WL 12097569, at *15 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2013)
17 (―Stated more simply, specific recovery is an available remedy for conversion. Because the
18 Complaint supports a conversion claim, it also supports a specific recovery remedy‖). Because
19 nPP‘s Fourth cause of action, for specific recovery of personal property, is encompassed by its
20 conversion claim, the Court dismisses the counterclaim for specific recovery of personal property
21 with prejudice.
22 C. Claim Six (DTSA)

23 nPP asserts a DTSA claim based on allegations that Avago misappropriated its trade
24 secrets by acquiring its confidential business information and disclosing it in the Avago
25 Applications and subsequent prosecution of those applications. Avago contends all of the
26 actionable conduct alleged in the Counterclaim occurred before the DTSA came into effect and
27 therefore, that the claim must be dismissed. The Court agrees.
28 Under the DTSA, ―[a]n owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil
14
1 action under . . . if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in,
2 interstate or foreign commerce.‖ 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1). ―Misappropriation‖ under DTSA
3 includes both the acquisition and disclosure of trade secrets. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1839(5)(A) & (B). The
4 DTSA applies to ―any misappropriation of a trade secret . . . for which any act occurs on or after
5 the date of the enactment of [the] Act.‖ Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, PL 114-153, May 11,
6 2016, 130 Stat. 376. The date of enactment was May 11, 2016.
7 Here, nPP does not dispute that the original wrongful acquisition of its confidential
8 information, namely, Avago‘s receipt of nPP‘s confidential information in the course of the
9 parties‘ business discussions that ended in 2012, occurred before the DTSA came into effect. It
10 nonetheless contends that Avago‘s continued use of its confidential information in the prosecution
11 of the Avago Applications allows it to seek a partial recovery for misappropriation from the date
12 the DTSA came into effect. Significantly, nPP does not suggest that any new information was
13 disclosed in the course of the patent prosecutions that had not been disclosed prior to DTSA‘s
14 effective date. Rather, it alleges that ―Avago again disclosed such information to the world by its
15 continued prosecution of the Avago Applications.‖ Counterclaim ¶84 (emphasis added).
16 nPP‘s reliance on Adams Arms, LLC v. Unified Weapon Sys., Inc., No. 8:16-CV-1503-T-
17 33AEP, 2016 WL 5391394, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2016) in support of its position is
18 misplaced. In that case, the defendant argued that because some of the conduct at issue occurred
19 before the effective date of DTSA, there was a single continuing misappropriation and therefore,
20 that none of the conduct was actionable. 2016 WL 5391394, at *5. The defendant relied on
21 language in DTSA‘s statute of limitation provision stating that ―[f]or purposes of this subsection, a
22 continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim of misappropriation.‖ Id. (quoting 18
23 U.S.C. § 1836(d)). But the court found that that language applied only to determinations of
24 timeliness of a DTSA claim and did not preclude a DTSA claim based on acts that occurred after
25 the effective date of the statute. In that case, there were allegations that specific information had
26 been disclosed (apparently for the first time) after the effective date of the DTSA and therefore,
27 the court allowed the claim to go forward. Id. at *6.
28 The situation here is entirely different from Adams Arms. As currently alleged, the
15
1 confidential information at issue was disclosed when the Avago Applications were published,
2 before the DTSA came into effect. nPP has not cited any authority suggesting that the DTSA
3 allows a misappropriation claim to be asserted based on the continued use of information that was
4 disclosed prior to the effective date of the statute. Simply alleging that the same information was
5 disclosed ―again‖ is not sufficient to avoid this result as ―disclosure,‖ by definition, implies that
6 the information was previously secret. See Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg.
7 Corp., 587 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (―Once the information is in the public domain and
8 the element of secrecy is gone, the trade secret is extinguished and the patentee‘s only protection
9 is that afforded under the patent law.‖) (citation omitted). Because nPP has failed to allege any
10 facts showing that acts of misappropriation occurred after DTSA came into effect, its DTSA claim
11 fails on the pleadings.
12 For the reasons stated above, nPP‘s DTSA claim is dismissed with leave to amend to
13 include, if it can, allegations showing that the DTSA claim is based on misappropriation that
14 occurred after the effective date of that statute.
15 IV. CONCLUSION
16 For the reasons stated above, the Motion is GRANTED. nPP‘s Third and Sixth causes of
17 action are dismissed with leave to amend. nPP‘s Fourth cause of action is dismissed with
18 prejudice. nPP shall file its amended Counterclaim within thirty (30) days of the date of this
19 Order.
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22 Dated: January 31, 2017
23 ______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
24 Chief Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28
16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 16-cv-2473-WJM-MEH
ENGILITY CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES AARON DANIELS,

RUTHERFORD “CHIP” SURBER, and
DEPLOYABLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN PART
Engility Corporation (“Engility”) brings this action against two former employees
—Defendants Charles Daniels (“Daniels”) and Rutherford “Chip” Surber (“Surber”)—
and a company they recently formed, Deployable Technology Solutions (“DTS”)
(collectively, “Defendants”). Engilty claims:
1. violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C.
§ 1836(b);
2. violation of the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Colo.
Rev. Stat. §§ 7-74-101 to -110;
3. breach of a confidentiality agreement;
4. breach of the duty of loyalty;
5. tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage;
6. unfair competition; and
7. defamation.
(See generally ECF No. 7.)
Currently before the Court is the preliminary injunction portion of Engility’s Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“TRO/PI Motion”). (ECF
No. 9.)1 The Court has also received Defendants’ Response (ECF No. 22), Engility’s
Reply (ECF No. 24). The Court held a Preliminary Injunction Hearing on November 21,
2016, after which it ordered further briefing (see ECF Nos. 35, 38, 39).
Having carefully considered all of the briefing and evidence received thus far,
and for the reasons explained below in greater detail, the preliminary injunction portion
of Engility’s TRO/PI Motion is granted in part. Conditioned on Engility posting a $1
million bond, Defendants are enjoined from disclosing or otherwise making use of
Engility’s trade secrets, and from competing for certain business for a period of one
year beginning (retroactively) on October 4, 2016 expiring on October 3, 2017.
I. BACKGROUND
Based on the witness testimony and other evidence received into the record at
the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, as well as the parties’ filings to date, the Court
makes the following factual findings:
A. Engility’s Business and Daniels’ Employment2
Engility describes itself as “the top solutions provider of military deployable
communications equipment, ranging from collaboration tools such as video
teleconferencing and streaming video to common operational picture tools.” (ECF No.
1
The Court previously denied the TRO portion of this motion. (See ECF No. 12.)
2
The TRO/PI Motion focuses entirely on Daniels’ actions and alleged misdeeds. Surber
is barely mentioned. The Court therefore likewise focuses on Daniels.
2
11 at 2, ¶ 1.) As relevant here, Engility says there are “two crucial programs performed
by Engility” that fall within this business focus: (1) “the Deployable Communications
Capabilities Systems (‘DCCS’)”; and (2) “the upcoming requirement, Mobile User
Objective System (‘MUOS’).” (Id. at 3.)
DCCS is a “solution” that Engility provides to U.S. Northern Command
(“USNORTHCOM”), which is the United States military subdivision responsible for
protecting the continental United States and closely related territorial interests. DCCS
comprises equipment (e.g., radio terminals, antennas, satellite dishes, etc.) that Engility
procures from third parties and then assembles into an interoperable system that
permits the user to accomplish voice and data communications similar to modern cell
phone technology, but unconstrained by the need to be near a cell phone tower.
MUOS is, among other things, a new constellation of satellites that provides even
greater bandwidth for such communications—what the parties describe as roughly
analogous to going from a 3G cell phone network to a 4G network. Eventually, all
DCCS equipment must be able to communicate through MUOS.
Engility says that Daniels was “the ‘face’ of Engility” to USNORTHCOM. (ECF
No. 11 at 2–3, ¶ 2.) Specifically, he was “the Technical Program Manager” for Engility
with respect to DCCS and, allegedly, MUOS. (Id.) “In this position,” says Engility,
“Defendant Daniels was privy to all of Engility’s most sensitive information regarding
these programs . . . . He was also the principal conduit of information from the
USNORTHCOM programs back to Engility.” (Id.)
Daniels and Surber formed DTS in May 2016—apparently unbeknownst to
anyone else at Engility, and allegedly with the intention to “compete separately for the
3
MUOS Procurement.” (ECF No. 7 ¶ 15.)
B. Daniels’ Confidentiality Agreement
Engility is the successor-in-interest to a division of L-3 Communications. (Id. at 3
n.1.) When Daniels was hired by L-3, he signed an “Employee Confidentiality and
Innovation Agreement” (“Confidentiality Agreement”). (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.)3 The
Confidentiality Agreement protects “Proprietary Information,” defined as
all trade secrets, know-how and other information that

relates to the business of L-3 and is not generally available
to the public or generally known in the industries in which
L-3 does business or may become engaged, including,
without limitation, any formulas, devices, inventions,
methods, techniques or processes, compilations of
information, records and specifications that are owned or
licensed by L-3 and used in the operation of L-3’s business
and any other information of L-3 relating to its services and
products (offered or to be offered), research, development,
marketing, pricing, clients and prospective clients, business
methods, strategies, financial condition, plans, personnel
information and capabilities, policies or prospects.
(Id. ¶ 4.) The Confidentiality Agreement also protects “L-3 Materials,” meaning “[a]ll
files, records, proposals, specifications or other documents, and all computer software,
software applications, files, databases and the like relating to L-3’s business or which
contain Proprietary Information.” (Id. ¶ 2.)
In the Confidentiality Agreement, Daniels agreed “to hold all Proprietary
Information and L-3 Materials in strict confidence,” and agreed not to “take, use, copy,
disclose, publish or summarize any Proprietary Information or L-3 Materials except to
the extent necessary to carry out [his] duties and responsibilities as an employee of
3
This document is also in the record at ECF No. 7-1.
4
L-3.” (Id. ¶ 1.) Daniels further agreed that, upon separation from L-3, he would
“promptly deliver to L-3 all L-3 Materials in [his] possession, custody or control,” and
would not “retain any copies of the L-3 Materials in any form or medium whatsoever.”
(Id. ¶ 2.)
The Confidentiality Agreement explicitly inures to the benefit of L-3’s successors
(id. ¶ 8), so it continues to apply as between Engility and Daniels.
C. Daniels’ Separation from Engility
The crux of the present proceedings is precisely what Daniels did with Engility
data in his possession shortly before and shortly after his final day with the company.
The parties have somewhat conflicting stories in this regard. To understand the Court’s
eventual decisions regarding which story (or aspects of a story) to believe, the Court
finds it helpful to present the parties’ various accounts in the chronological order that
they were presented to the Court. As will be obvious below, the change in stories over
time is revealing, particularly with respect to Daniels.
1. Engility’s Original Story
According to Engility’s TRO/PI Motion, Daniels’ last day with the company was
August 29, 2016; this was also the date on which he returned his company computer,
and on which Engility terminated his access credentials to the company network. (ECF
No. 11 at 4, ¶ 6.) However, on an unspecified date after August 29, Daniels
surrendered to Engility a flash drive full of Engility information, but with a “date modified”
metadata date of August 30, 2016 as to most of that information. (Id.; see also ECF
5
No. 7-4 at 3.)4
From this, Engility inferred that “the contents of the flash drive—which include
Engility trade secrets and proprietary information—were copied from a separate copy of
the documents, which separate copy has not been disclosed, let alone returned to
Engility.” (ECF No. 11 at 4, ¶ 6.) Based on that inf erence, Engility claims that Daniel
still has access to:
• Engility’s cost loading process, a proprietary tool by which

Engility determines product pricing based on profitability
targets and anticipated costs, including employee salaries.
• Profitability information, on the basis of which Engility bids

its work for the government.
• Customer contact information and summaries of customer

interactions regarding the customers’ needs and purchasing
goals.
• Engility’s contract pipeline and opportunities, as well as

documents pertaining to its contracting strategies for the
identification of opportunities and the development of
bidding strategies.
• Product designs and equipment configuration, including

equipment, trailers, and IP schematics for the DCCS
program, as well as equipment bundling for routers,
switches, cryptographic, radios, VTC Phones, etc.
(ECF No. 7 ¶ 24.)
2. Daniels’ Original Story
In a verified response brief, Daniels originally presented a materially different
4
ECF No. 7-4, p. 3, is a screenshot showing the “date modified” dates on the flash
drive. Two of the eight dates shown are September 8, 2016, and September 15, 2016. Engility
claims that these files “were opened by Engility employees”—thereby altering the metadata—
“before they realized the importance of the metadata on the flash drive.” (ECF No. 11 at 4,
¶ 6.)
6
account. Daniels says he tendered his two-week notice to Engility on August 15, 2016,
and he therefore agrees with Engility that his last day of work was supposed to be
August 29, 2016. (ECF No. 22 at 5.) However, his supervisor, Jim Appleyard, had
asked him “to create on a removable media device a copy of the files Daniels used in
his day to day work, and to structure the files in a manner that would be easy for his
replacement to follow.” (Id. at 5–6.) Due to more-pressing Engility assignments,
Daniels could not complete the flash drive by August 29. He therefore “informed
Appleyard he would be unable to complete the file project that day. Appleyard directed
Daniels to continue working on the files, and to bring in his laptop computer and the
[flash] drive as soon as he finished the project.” (Id. at 6.)
According to Daniels, he completed the flash drive project the next day (August
30) when he used his Engility-issued MacBook Pro to create a 13–14 gigabyte
collection of files that he then copied onto a 16 gigabyte flash drive. (Id. at 6 & n.3.)
Specifically, “[a]ll files Daniels copied to the [flash] drive for Appleyard were either
generated on or downloaded onto and copied from this laptop computer.” (Id.) Later
that same day (August 30), Daniels physically surrendered the flash drive and his
laptop to an Engility employee at an Engility office in Colorado Springs. (Id. at 6.) The
day after that (August 31), Daniels surrendered his company badge and keyfob at
another Engility office in Colorado Springs. (Id.)
Given this sequence of events, Daniels argued that the August 30 metadata date
on the flash drive is not evidence that he has kept a copy of anything, given that August
30 is the date he finalized the flash drive and then returned all of his materials to
Engility. (ECF No. 22 at 8.) He admitted, however, that he did retain a few allegedly
7
irrelevant files, and a few potentially relevant files, with permission:
Before returning the laptop, Daniels downloaded a copy of

his personal calendar and photos . . . onto [another f lash
drive] for himself. He also printed/saved to .PDF files (from
the Outlook Express program on the laptop computer) and
retained copies of a few e-mails that concerned projects he
planned to ask [Engility supervisor Christopher] Wasniak
about, along with some personal e-mails (e.g., an e-mail
from a customer thanking him for his hard work). Jim
Appleyard gave Daniels consent to retain those e-mails.
The e-mails Daniels retained contain 2.91 megabytes of
data, and do not contain any Engility trade secrets.
(Id. at 7 (footnote omitted).) Daniels identified the “projects he planned to ask W asniak
about” as “concern[ing] the JFHQ-NCR, JTF-N Garrison Services, and 153rd CACs that
Engility claims the Defendants failed to inform Engility about.” (Id. at 7 n.4.)5 Daniels
here refers to an allegation in Engility’s Complaint regarding “three support
opportunities under the USNORTHCOM umbrella” that Daniels “failed to inform Engility
about” before resigning. (ECF No. 7 ¶ 17.) Daniels also represented that all of these
files, and certain others, were part of a zip file that he placed on the flash drive, and that
also remained on his laptop at the time he turned it in.
3. Engility’s Reply
Engility’s reply brief argued that Daniels’ story is false. Engility proffered still
images from surveillance camera footage showing that the surrender of company
property Daniels says he performed on August 30 was actually performed on August
29—save for surrender of the flash drive, which happened on August 31. (See ECF
Nos. 24-1, 24-2.) Engility’s records also described two laptops that Daniels
5
Although the Court has received a glossary explaining what these alphabet-soup
acronyms stand for, no party has explained what they really mean.
8
surrendered on August 29.
According to Andrew Reisman, a computer forensics expert retained by Engility,
the first laptop (the MacBook Pro from which Daniels allegedly copied the files onto the
flash drive) shows “no evidence of activity on the device, whether by Mr. Daniels or
otherwise, after November 2015.” (ECF No. 24-7 ¶ 7.) The second laptop (a Dell
model) shows no activity after August 23, 2016, but multiple flash drives were inserted
into that laptop between May 2016 and August 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 8–10.)
In addition, Appleyard denied giving Daniels permission to keep any e-mails,
personal or otherwise. (ECF No. 24-5 ¶¶ 3–4.)
4. Pre-Hearing Discovery
The parties apparently conducted some amount of discovery before the
Preliminary Injunction Hearing. The Court is only aware of this discovery to the extent it
was discussed at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing. The Court’s understanding is as
follows.
Soon after Engility filed its reply brief, Defendants communicated to Engility that
the MacBook Pro sent to Reisman—apparently a 17-inch model—was not the MacBook
Pro Daniels had turned in at the end of his employment. Engility therefore sent the only
other two MacBook Pro laptops in its storeroom to Reisman, both of which were 15-inch
models. Reisman examined those laptops. On one of them he found a user profile for
Surber, and otherwise found nothing of interest to the current proceedings. On the
other, he found that it contained little more than the operating system files, and that a
hard drive partition had been “wiped,” i.e., overwritten with zeros. Reisman could not be
sure how much had been wiped by the user because the hard drive could have come
9
from the manufacturer with all zeros written on its unallocated space. In that instance
there would be no way to distinguish between zeros that resulted from user-directed
overwriting and zeros that had been there all along.
In any event, Daniels was confronted with Reisman’s findings at a deposition he
agreed to sit for on November 18, 2016. Daniels agreed that the MacBook with a wiped
partition was the one he turned in when he left his employment at Engility. As far as the
Court understands, when Daniels was asked why the partition was wiped, Daniels
explained that he had used the laptop to assem ble the files needed for the flash drive
project, then copied all of those files onto an external hard drive (not a flash drive), then
wiped his user profile from the laptop (for unexplained reasons), and then copied the
files on the external hard drive back onto the laptop. Finally, he copied those same files
from the laptop onto the flash drive, and ultimately turned in both the laptop and the
flash drive to Engility. It is not clear whether the deposition addressed the fate of the
external hard drive.
At his deposition, Daniels was also confronted with the video stills purporting to
show that he had turned in his laptop on August 29, not August 30. Daniels insisted
that the date and time stamp on those stills must be wrong, and he requested a chance
to watch the relevant surveillance video for August 29, August 30, and August 31. He
received that video later the same day, after the deposition had ended. His reaction to
the video came out for the first time, apparently, during the Preliminary Injunction
Hearing.
10
5. The Preliminary Injunction Hearing
a. Daniels’ Post-Separation Possession of Engility Materials
At the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, Engility called Appleyard to establish the
August 30 metadata dates on the flash drive. Appleyard said he was the first to notice
those dates and to bring their potential implications to Engility’s attention. Daniels’
counsel offered nothing to impeach this story or the accuracy of the August 30
metadata.
Engility also called Edward Wright. Wright was the employee to whom Daniels
admittedly returned all of his company materials. Wright testified that he received
Daniels’ two laptops (the MacBook Pro and the Dell) and most of his other equipment
on August 29, and the flash drive on August 31. Supposedly the videos show this for
each date, although those videos (Engility’s Exhibit 16) are too grainy and shot from too
great of a distance to reveal precisely what Daniels turned in on each date.
In any event, in his own testimony, Daniels announced that the videos convinced
him his memory had been wrong, and that he had indeed turned in his MacBook Pro
and the flash drive on August 29. When asked how he could explain the August 30
“date modified” metadata on the flash drive in light of his new story, he offered a theory
that he conceded was speculation. Specifically, he stated that all 13–14 gigabytes of
data copied onto the flash drive had been in a zip file (not just a subset of files, see Part
I.C.2, above), and that someone at Engility might have extracted the zip file on August
30, which would result at least in a “date created” date of August 30 as to those files.
Daniels apparently understood, however, that 13–14 gigabytes of compressed data
needs at least an equivalent amount of unallocated space to be successfully extracted,
11
and therefore that amount of data could not be successfully extracted onto a 16
gigabyte flash drive (a fact later confirmed by rebuttal testimony from Reisman).
Daniels therefore further speculated that someone at Engility extracted only discrete
files or directories, thereby generating the August 30 metadata date as to those files.
Daniels offered no other possible explanation.6
This testimony somewhat reduced Daniels’ credibility in the Court’s eyes, but a
later admission had an even more damaging effect. Specifically, Daniels admitted that
he did not at first erase the external hard drive mentioned above. Therefore, after his
employment ended, he continued to possess a copy of everything he had placed on the
flash drive. Attempting to explain this conduct, Daniels claimed that he believed his
new company (DTS) would become a subcontractor to, or partner with, Engility on
certain government contracts, and he therefore asked Appleyard’s permission to retain
all of the flash drive data (not just 2.91 megabytes of allegedly personal materials) so
that he could remain fully informed, or at least be better able to answer questions from
Appleyard or from Daniels’ successor at Engility. According to Daniels, in response to
his request for permission to retain this larger set of data, Appleyard supposedly said,
“Giddy-up,” which Daniels interpreted, based on prior experience, to mean that
Appleyard approved. In rebuttal testimony, Appleyard emphatically denied ever giving
6
At closing argument, Daniels’ counsel theorized that the flash drive data could have
been extracted onto the hard drive of a computer into which the flash drive was inserted on
August 30, thereby creating a new metadata date and obviating the problem of not having
enough space for extraction. Although this could indeed have changed the metadata of the
copy extracted onto the computer, Daniels presented no evidence that it could change the
metadata on the flash drive itself. All of the evidence regarding metadata was derived by
Appleyard from the flash drive, and was unrebutted. Moreover, there is no evidence that
anyone at Engility accessed the flash drive on August 30. The Court therefore rejects this
theory.
12
Daniels such approval.
Returning to Daniels’ story, however, Daniels claimed that he began deleting files
from the external hard drive in the early part of September, and he had deleted all of
them by the third or fourth week of September. By this point, he says, he realized that
the opportunity to work with Engility would not materialize, and so he no longer had use
for the retained data. Daniels testified that he no longer possesses or controls any
Engility data, including the 2.91 megabytes of allegedly personal materials, his only
copy of which he recently gave to his counsel.
b. The Flash Drive Contents
Concerning what Daniels retained (at least for a few weeks), Engility offered a
sampling of what had been on the flash drive—and therefore what had been on
Daniels’ external hard drive. Much of this was offered through Engility’s Exhibit 38,
which has been designated “Highly Confidential,” and the testimony regarding which the
Court ordered would be subject to Restricted Access, Level 1. See D.C.COLO.LCivR
7.2(b). The Court will therefore not discuss the testimony or documents in any detail.
The Court is satisfied, however, that the documents contain sensitive information, such
as internal pricing and competition strategies. Although Daniels testified that certain
parts of Exhibit 38 had been disclosed to the public generally, the Court is nonetheless
convinced that other parts contain sensitive, internal information and that Engility would
reasonably view as proprietary.
c. Competition for MUOS
Engility is most worried about Defendants competing for MUOS-related contracts
from USNORTHCOM. On this issue, the evidence at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing
13
essentially tracked the parties’ positions in their briefs. Engility claims that Daniels was
intimately familiar with Engility’s plans to pursue MUOS contracts. Daniels responds
that neither he nor Engility knew anything of importance regarding USNORTHCOM’s
plans for MUOS. Moreover, says Daniels, although Engility procured certain equipment
for USNORTHCOM to be used in testing MUOS capabilities in Alaska, Engility was no
more than a procurement agent under the auspices of its DCCS contract—a convenient
path for USNORTHCOM to draw upon rather than going through the allegedly
cumbersome process of procuring the equipment directly. Engility allegedly had no
participation in the equipment’s actual testing in Alaska, save for Surber’s coincidental
presence at the same facility in Alaska where the testing was taking place.
Engility disputes this, claiming that Surber and Daniels were directly involved in
the testing. The Court notes, however, that the firmness of USNORTHCOM’s plans for
MUOS (or lack thereof) is not directly relevant to whether Daniels is aware of Engility’s
plans to compete for MUOS contracts. In that regard, Daniels nowhere rebutted
Engility’s evidence that those plans exist and that he understands them. The Court
accordingly finds on this record that Daniels is, as alleged, familiar with Engility’s
MUOS-related business plans.
II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD
A. The Various Standards
In a sense, there are at least three preliminary injunction standards. The first,
typically-quoted standard requires: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a threat
of irreparable harm, which (3) outweighs any harm to the non-moving party, and (4) that
the injunction would not adversely affect the public interest. See, e.g., Awad v. Ziriax,
14
670 F.3d 1111, 1125 (10th Cir. 2012).
If, however, the injunction will (1) alter the status quo, (2) mandate action by the
defendant, or (3) afford the movant all the relief that it could recover at the conclusion of
a full trial on the merits, a second standard comes into play, one in which the movant
must meet a heightened burden. See O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal
v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 975 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Specifically, the proposed
injunction “must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case
support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course” and “a
party seeking such an injunction must make a strong showing both with regard to the
likelihood of success on the merits and with regard to the balance of harms.” Id.
On the other hand, the Tenth Circuit also approves of a
modified . . . preliminary injunction test when the moving

party demonstrates that the [irreparable harm], [balance of
harms], and [public interest] factors tip strongly in its favor.
In such situations, the moving party may meet the
requirement for showing [likelihood of] success on the merits
by showing that questions going to the merits are so serious,
substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue ripe
for litigation and deserving of more deliberate investigation.
Verlo v. Martinez, 820 F.3d 1113, 1128 n.5 (10th Cir. 2016). T his standard, in other
words, permits a weaker showing on likelihood of success when the party’s showing on
the other factors is strong. It is not clear how this standard would apply if the second
standard also applies.
In any event, “a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy,” and therefore
“the right to relief must be clear and unequivocal.” Greater Yellowstone Coal. v.
Flowers, 321 F.3d 1250, 1256 (10th Cir. 2003).
15
B. Does Any Modified Standard Apply?
Engility requests that Defendants be
enjoined, restrained and prohibited, directly or indirectly,

from:
1. Disclosing, using, and/or otherwise making publicly

available for any purpose any documents and information
they obtained as a result of their employment with Engility
and all documents and information derived therefrom (the
“Materials”), whether in original, copied, computerized,
handwritten, physical, intangible, or any other form;
2. Destroying, erasing or otherwise making unavailable for

further proceedings in this matter, the Materials, any related
metadata, or any other evidence concerning any of the
events alleged in the Amended Complaint in this matter
[although not without first submitting all electronic devices in
Defendants’ possession or control for forensic imaging, as
discussed in Part III.F, below];
3. Accepting any award of USNORTHCOM business

opportunities obtained by Defendants since their
misappropriation of the Materials.
(ECF No. 9-1 at 2.)
Defendants claim that Engility’s requested injunction falls under the stricter O
Centro standard for injunctions that mandate action or would provide all the relief
Engility might seek at the conclusion of a full trial on the merits. (ECF No. 22 at 3,
13–15.)7 To the extent Defendants direct this argument at Engility’s first and second
requests, the Court rejects the notion that those requests would give Engility all the
relief it might seek after trial. The Court further rejects the notion that a requirement to
erase trade secrets is the sort of mandatory action that the stricter O Centro standard
7
Defendants do not argue the “alter the status quo” prong.
16
was meant to address.
Engility’s third request, however, gives the Court pause, particularly on the
question of whether it grants Engility all the relief it could seek after prevailing at a full
trial on the merits. But the Court agrees with Engility that, as the case currently stands,
its defamation and tortious interference claims would remain for adjudication regardless
of what the Court orders here. Specifically, an order preventing Defendants from
accepting USNORTHCOM business would not ensure that USNORTHCOM would
award such business to Engility. If Defendants’ alleged ill-speaking of Engility prompted
USNORTHCOM decision to award that business to some third party, Engility may still
have a defamation or tortious interference claim for damages against Defendants.
Thus, the typical preliminary injunction standard applies.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Engility stakes its preliminary injunction only on three of its causes of action,
namely, for violation of the DTSA, violation of CUTSA, and breach of the Confidentiality
Agreement. The Court finds that it need only address the alleged DTSA and CUTSA
violations.
1. Relevant Definitions
“Trade secret,” for DTSA purposes, is defined as follows:
all forms and types of financial, business, scientific,

technical, economic, or engineering information, including
patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas,
designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes,
procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or
intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or
memorialized physically, electronically, graphically,
17
photographically, or in writing if—
(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable

measures to keep such information secret; and
(B) the information derives independent economic

value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to,
and not being readily ascertainable through proper means
by, another person who can obtain economic value from the
disclosure or use of the information[.]
18 U.S.C. § 1839(3).
CUTSA defines “trade secret” as “the whole or any portion or phase of any
scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, improvement,
confidential business or financial information, listing of names, addresses, or telephone
numbers, or other information relating to any business or profession which is secret and
of value.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(4). CUTSA, like the DTSA, requires that the
owner of the trade secret must take steps to shield the information from public
knowledge: “To be a ‘trade secret’ the owner thereof must have taken measures to
prevent the secret from becoming available to persons other than those selected by the
owner to have access thereto for limited purposes.” Id.
With the exception of a few specific documents that Court finds irrelevant for
present purposes, Daniels does not challenge Engility’s assertion that the information to
which Daniels had access, and allegedly retained, contains trade secrets as defined
under the DTSA and CUTSA. The Court therefore finds as much.
2. Do Defendants Continue to Possess Engility Trade Secrets?
Daniels insisted at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing that neither he nor anyone
associated with DTS continues to possess or control Engility trade secrets. The Court
18
is frankly skeptical. This skepticism began with Daniels’ response brief, which nowhere
directly denied containing a copy of the materials found on the flash drive. He instead
proffered facts to refute the inference that an August 30 metadata date necessarily
meant he had accessed some personal copy of the relevant information, and he
asserted that “Engility has not provided any evidence that the Defendants have
possession of any of its trade secrets.” (See ECF No. 22 at 5, 6 & n.3, 8, 11.) 8
This lack of direct denial piqued the Court’s suspicion, and the Preliminary
Injunction Hearing did not help Defendants’ cause. As noted above, the Hearing
revealed that nearly every aspect of Daniels’ original story was either false or materially
incomplete, forcing Daniels into explanations that smack of one trying to escape a lie.
The Court finds the following most notable.
First, Daniels forthrightly admitted that he was wrong about turning in his
MacBook Pro and flash drive on August 30. This admission, although commendable,
left Daniels unable to explain the August 30 metadata other than through his self-
described speculation about a file extraction scenario that a 16 gigabyte flash drive
could not have accommodated absent the user’s decision to extract individual files or
directories—of which there is no evidence. Indeed, there is no evidence that the entire
contents of the flash drive were ever compressed. Prior to the Preliminary Injunction
Hearing, the only claim to compression Daniels made was regarding the 2.91
8
In briefing, Defendants’ clearest near-denial is to state generically (in the balance-of-
harms section of their response brief) that “Defendants do not have possession of Engility’s
trade secrets.” (ECF No. 22 at 17.) But this statement is still ambiguous. The Court could not
be sure whether Defendants meant to say that they do not possess any of the data also found
on the flash drive, or that they do not possess anything they deem to be a trade secret—two
very different meanings.
19
megabytes he previously admitted to retaining, which he described as deriving from a
discrete zip file containing his work e-mails, which zip file he placed on the flash drive.
Second, Daniels explained the wiped partition on his MacBook Pro by claiming
that he erased his user profile, then copied files back onto the partition, then copied
those files to the flash drive. But (a) there is no evidence that those files were actually
copied back onto the MacBook Pro (according to Reisman, they are not there anymore,
if they ever were), and (b) Daniels never attempted a reasoned explanation for this
cumbersome and, at best for Daniels, highly unusual procedure. In particular, Daniels
nowhere explained why he needed to erase his user profile at all (apparently Surber did
not), much less irretrievably erase it by overwriting the partition with zeros.
Third, Daniels never revealed until the Preliminary Injunction Hearing that the
materials which eventually made it onto the flash drive also remained on his external
hard drive, in his possession, for at least three to four weeks after his departure from
Engility. And Daniels’ explanation for keeping those files on his hard drive—that
Appleyard gave permission—is facially not credible. In the Court’s view it simply defies
belief that Appleyard would allow Daniels to keep a copy of such a large collection of
sensitive Engility information, even for the alleged purpose of potentially partnering with
or subcontracting from Engility.
Given this, the Court cannot at this time credit Daniels’ representation that he
and DTS possess no Engility data. The Court instead finds that Engility is likely to
succeed in proving that Daniels still possesses that data in some form.
3. Do Daniels’ Retained Files Contain Trade Secrets?
Assuming that Daniels continues to possess Engility data, the next question is
20
whether that data qualifies as a trade secret. As discussed previously, both the DTSA
and CUTSA require steps to restrict access to information before it may be deemed a
trade secret. The Court is satisfied that at least a fair portion of whatever Daniels may
retain qualifies as an Engility trade secret. Accordingly, the Court finds that Engility is
likely to succeed in proving that its trade secrets have been misappropriated, including
trade secrets related to potential MUOS business from USNORTHCOM.
4. Can the Court Enjoin Acceptance of USNORTHCOM Business?
All of the foregoing would be more than enough to grant Engility’s request that
Defendants be enjoined from disclosing trade secrets. A more difficult question,
however, is whether the Court can enjoin Defendants from accepting USNORTHCOM
business.
Under the DTSA, the Court cannot grant an injunction that “prevent[s] a person
from entering into an employment relationship,” and the Court can only place conditions
on employment “based on evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on
the information the person knows.” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(I). There is no
indication that “employment relationship” encompasses the role of an outside
contractor, as DTS would be to USNORTHCOM if awarded a contract. Thus, the Court
finds that this particular restriction does not apply in the present circumstances.
However, the DTSA further forbids an injunction that would “conflict with an
applicable State law prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful profession, trade,
or business.” Id. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(II). This raises questions discussed below
regarding Colorado’s statutory restrictions on noncompete provisions.
Before turning to those statutory restrictions, the Court notes that CUTSA has a
21
much less specific provision (as compared to the DTSA) regarding injunctive relief:
“Temporary and final injunctions including affirmative acts may be granted on such
equitable terms as the court deems reasonable to prevent or restrain actual or
threatened misappropriation of a trade secret.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-103. However,
the Court is confident that one may not obtain by way of an injunction what one could
not obtain in a contract, and, as noted, Colorado has statutory restrictions regarding the
scope of contractual noncompete agreements. Therefore, the Court cannot issue an
injunction that effectively creates a statutorily disapproved noncompete restriction. By
implication, then, CUTSA probably has the same sorts of restrictions as the DTSA.
As for Colorado’s statutory noncompete restrictions, Colorado presumptively
invalidates noncompete agreements, subject to an important exception that conceivably
applies here:
Any covenant not to compete which restricts the right of any

person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or
unskilled labor for any employer shall be void, but this
subsection . . . shall not apply to:
***
(b) Any contract for the protection of trade secrets . . . .
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(2).
To be clear, this statute does not directly apply to this case because there is no
covenant not to compete. However, it does appear to be an “applicable State law
prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful profession, trade, or business,” 18
U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(II), and therefore appears relevant to any consideration under
the DTSA of whether the Court may enjoin Defendants from accepting USNORTHCOM
22
business. At a minimum, § 8-2-113(2) appears to express Colorado’s policy in this
circumstance, even if no actual written covenant not to compete was executed by the
parties. And again, with respect to CUTSA, it would be incongruous if the Court could
create, by judicial fiat, a noncompete restriction that would not survive § 8-2-113(2) if it
appeared in a contract. Thus, the Court must consider § 8-2-113(2) in the CUTSA
context as well.
Based on all of the foregoing, the Court is persuaded that it may only enjoin
competition or solicitation if, and to the extent, necessary to protect trade secrets.
Having carefully considered the matter, the Court finds that a noncompete injunction is
appropriate under the circumstances. For the reasons already stated in Part III.A.2,
above, the Court does not find Daniels credible and can only assume, on this record,
that Daniels still retains some portion of Engility’s trade secrets. Indeed, Daniels has
demonstrated a propensity for making surreptitious copies of the relevant data, and the
Court simply cannot trust Daniels’ representations that no f urther copies exist. Thus, to
prevent Defendants from taking advantage of trade secrets in their possession, the
Court finds that an injunction against soliciting or competing for USNORTHCOM is
appropriate. The precise scope of the injunction is discussed below at Part III.F.9
B. Irreparable Harm
Engility argues that “misappropriation of trade secrets causes irreparable harm
as a matter of law.” (ECF No. 11 at 10.) Engility cites certain cases for this proposition
(see id.), but none of them actually comes to this conclusion. Engility’s cases are either
9
Given this analysis, the Court need not reach Engility’s arguments regarding
“inevitable disclosure.” (See ECF No. 38 at 7–9.)
23
about copyright law (not trade secrets), or involve a situation where trade secrets were
about to be publicly disclosed, not just misused by a former employee.
Nonetheless, the Tenth Circuit excuses the irreparable harm requirement when
the evidence shows that a defendant is or will soon be engaged in acts or practices
prohibited by statute, and that statute itself provides for injunctive relief to prevent such
violations. See Star Fuel Marts, LLC v. Sam’s East, Inc., 362 F.3d 639, 651 (10th Cir.
2004); Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 963 (10th Cir. 2001); Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Lennen, 640 F.2d 255, 259 (10th Cir. 1981). Because both the
DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A), and CUTSA, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-103, provide for
injunctive relief to prevent misuse of trade secrets, irreparable harm presumptively
exists if Defendants have misused, or are likely to misuse, trade secrets. The
irreparable harm element thus automatically favors Engility.10
C. Balance of Harms
Defendants argue that “the harm to . . . them [of an injunction] will be far greater
than any threatened injury to Engility” because “the Defendants do not have possession
of Engility’s trade secrets, and are not competing to acquire any business that Engility
either has or is in a position to obtain.” (ECF No. 22 at 17.) T his argument is
misplaced. The Court would not be reaching the balance-of-harms question without
finding a likelihood of success regarding trade secret misappropriation, so it is pointless
10
The Court seriously doubts whether Star Fuel and its predecessors remain good law.
Later Supreme Court precedent—particularly Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), and eBay v.
MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006)—strongly suggests that no element of the injunction test
should be presumed, thus calling the Star Fuel line of precedent into doubt. But the Tenth
Circuit has not repudiated that line of precedent, nor has any Supreme Court case overruled it
explicitly or by clear implication. The Court therefore is bound to follow it.
24
to argue that the balance of harm favors the defendant because the defendant is not
doing anything wrong.
As to the assertion that Defendants are “not competing to acquire any business
that Engility either has or is in a position to obtain,” Defendants offered nothing at the
Preliminary Injunction Hearing to support this position.
From Engility’s perspective, it is losing business on account of a former
employee unlawfully using his inside Engility knowledge to outmaneuver Engility.
Engility argues that this should necessarily tip the balance of harms in its favor because
“[t]he defendants will suffer no harm that is recognized in law if they are prohibited from
using information to which they have no legal right.” (ECF No. 11 10–11 (quoting
Statera, Inc. v. Henrickson, 2009 WL 2169235, at *4 (D. Colo. July 17, 2009)).)
With respect to Judge Robert E. Blackburn, author of the Statera decision on
which Engility relies, the undersigned disagrees that this is the appropriate analysis.
Under the reasoning of Statera, the balance of harms analysis is superfluous once
likelihood of success is established. From the undersigned’s perspective, however,
balancing of harms remains an independent consideration, even assuming likelihood of
success on the merits. In other words, the balance-of-harms element necessarily
contemplates the possibility that, in some situations, the harm of an injunction to the
defendant is so great that an injunction should not enter, even though the defendant is
likely acting unlawfully.
Such a situation does not exist here, however. Defendants have proffered no
evidence of harm other than lost USNORTHCOM revenue—currently estimated at $6.1
million in gross revenue for a MUOS-related project, with about 14% of that as profit.
25
Defendants have not shown that losing such business will cause DTS to fold, or will
otherwise put their professional livelihoods at risk.11 Accordingly, the Court finds that
the balance of harms favors Engility, which stands to lose at least the same amount of
revenue to a competitor with a likely unlawful advantage.
D. Public Interest
“[T]he public has an interest in protecting valid trade secrets and preventing
unfair competition.” Electrology Lab., Inc. v. Kunze, 169 F. Supp. 3d 1119, 1165 (D.
Colo. 2016). The Court finds that this is the paramount public interest in these
circumstances.
E. Bond
The Court must normally impose a bond on Engility as a condition of preliminary
injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Engility does not discuss a bond at all in the
TRO/PI Motion. Its proposed order, however, suggests “a nominal bond in the amount
of $500.00.” (ECF No. 9-1 at 4.) This is far too low. If USNORTHCOM business is
valuable enough to litigate over in this lawsuit, it is worth much more than $500 to both
parties.
Both parties agree that the most immediately available MUOS-related contract is
11
In their post-hearing supplemental brief, Defendants claim—for the first time and
without supporting citations—that an injunction of the scope sought by Engility “will prevent the
Defendants from doing any work, either individually, through DTS, or for another contractor that
is within the USNORTHCOM area of responsibility, which is all of North America. Effectively,
the Defendants would not be able to work in their chosen profession anywhere in the United
States.” (ECF No. 39 at 14.) If this assertion is true, it was Defendants’ duty to develop a
supporting factual record either before or during the Preliminary Injunction Hearing.
Defendants did not do so, and “argument of counsel is not evidence.” Pinkerton v. Colo. Dep’t
of Transp., 563 F.3d 1052, 1061 (10th Cir. 2009). The Court accordingly will not consider this
assertion.
26
worth about $6.1 million. According to Daniels, this would represent gross revenue,
while net revenue would be about 14% of that amount ($854,000). Considering this
figure and the monetary stakes generally at issue, the Court finds that a $1 million bond
is appropriate.
F. Wording of the Injunction
The Court has no qualms with Engility’s proposed anti-disclosure language,
which would prohibit Defendants from “[d]isclosing, using, and/or otherwise making
publicly available for any purpose any documents and information they obtained as a
result of their employment with Engility and all documents and information derived
therefrom (the ‘Materials’), whether in original, copied, computerized, handwritten,
physical, intangible, or any other form.” (ECF No. 9-1 at 2.)
As for Engility’s request that Defendants be ordered to destroy whatever trade
secrets they may have in their possession, this somewhat conflicts with Engility’s further
desire to obtain complete images of Defendants’ various electronic devices—
presumably to discover whether Defendants retained other files. (Compare id. at 2 with
id. at 3.) The Court will not rule at this time whether Engility is entitled to such imaging.
It may be, however, and so the Court finds it inappropriate to include in the injunction a
directive to destroy data that may need to be preserved for later discovery purposes.
Finally, regarding the noncompete portion of the injunction, the Court directed
both sides to brief the question of substantive, temporal, and geographic scope.
Defendants argue that if any injunction is issued, it should be limited “to no more than 6
months in duration, and to government funded efforts related to DCCS or MUOS
coming directly through David Banks at USNORTHCOM’s offices at Peterson Air Force
27
Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado that were validated prior to August 29, 2016.”
(ECF No. 39 at 13.) But defendants do not explain who David Banks is,12 nor why it
would be important to specify where his office is located, nor what it means for a project
to be “validated.” At best, then, this proposal is unhelpf ul; at worst, the Court suspects
that it would be so narrow as to be meaningless.
Engility, for its part, provides somewhat more detail. Concerning geographic
scope, Engility proposes the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, given that this is the scope of its current work with
USNORTHCOM. (ECF No. 38 at 14–15.) The Court finds this geographic scope
reasonable under these specific circumstances.
As for temporal scope, Engility proposes two years because this is the time
horizon contained in certain highly confidential planning documents allegedly retained
by Defendants. (Id. at 15–16.) In the Court’s experience, however, two years is
generally at the outer range of what would be permissible in a contractual noncompete
provision running against a former employee. The Court finds that a one-year term
would be more appropriate in the circumstances. One year is sufficient time for
information to go stale such that whatever competitive advantage Defendants might
possess will be substantially lessened. Moreover, the Court finds that this one-year
term should begin to run from October 4, 2016, the day after the date on which
USNORTHCOM cut off its negotiations with Defendants, having learned of this lawsuit.
Before that date, Defendants were improperly taking advantage of trade secrets—or at
12
He was mentioned in the Preliminary Injunction Hearing but his significance remains
unclear.
28
least Engility is likely to prove as much. Thus, in equity, the Court cannot set the
beginning of the one-year term any earlier than that. But, as far as the record reveals,
Defendants have not been taking advantage of trade secrets since that time, and
therefore they one-year term should not begin to run any later than that either.
Finally, as for substantive scope, Engility proposes the following:
Defendants are enjoined from directly or indirectly, for

themselves or on behalf of any business entity in any form
whatsoever, soliciting, accepting, and performing, any
support work, whether as a prime contractor or
subcontractor, for the United States Northern Command
(USNORTHCOM) for Deployable Communications
Capabilities Systems (DCCS) Lifecycle Configuration
Management (LCM) requirement, inclusive of Mobile User
Objective System (MUOS) systems.
For purposes of this injunction, the definition for “support

work” means providing deployable communications solutions
(hardware and software), system lifecycle support, project
management, capability design, system modifications,
technical refresh, equipment training, technical support,
service desk, equipment repair, spare parts management
and general association with the DCCS inclusive of MUOS
program.
Also for purposes of this injunction, the term

USNORTHCOM is inclusive of the Service Components
(i.e., Army North (ARNORTH), Air Force North (AFNORTH),
Naval Forces North (NAVNORTH), Marine Forces North
(MARFORNORTH)), mission partners (i.e., National Guard,
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)) and subordinate
commands (Alaska Command (ALCOM), Joint Task Force -
Civil Support (JTF-CS), Joint Task Force – North (JTF-N),
and Joint Forces Headquarters-National Capital Region
(JFHQNCR)), and USNORTHCOM commanders team, and
USNORTHCOM Domestic Operations (DOMOPS).
(ECF No. 38 at 17.) The Court understands the first proposed paragraph, but not the
second and third paragraphs. In particular, Engility does not explain the various terms
29
in those paragraphs, nor what the additional specificity adds to the injunction. The
Court will therefore adopt only the first proposed paragraph.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The preliminary injunction portion of Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED IN PART;
2. Conditioned upon Plaintiff posting with the Court a bond of $1,000,000.00 and
providing the Court appropriate notice thereof on or before December 16, 2016,
Defendants, their agents, and all those actively in concert with them, are
PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED as follows:
a. Defendants may not disclose, use, and/or otherwise make publicly
available for any purpose any documents and information they obtained
as a result of their employment with Engility and all documents and
information derived therefrom, whether in original, copied, computerized,
handwritten, physical, intangible, or any other form; and
b. For a period of one year beginning on October 4, 2016, and ending on
October 3, 2017, Defendants are enjoined from, directly or indirectly, for
themselves or on behalf of any business entity in any form whatsoever,
soliciting, accepting, and performing, any support work, whether as a
prime contractor or subcontractor, for the United States Northern
Command (USNORTHCOM) for Deployable Communications Capabilities
Systems (DCCS) Lifecycle Configuration Management (LCM)
requirement, inclusive of Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) systems.
30
3. Plaintiff’s requests for expedited discovery and any request to image Defendants’
electronic storage devices (ECF No. 9-1), are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The parties are instead directed to confer in good faith regarding these matters
in an attempt to come to a mutual resolution (which could include an agreement
that some or all of these matters can be addressed through the normal course of
discovery). To the extent matters remain in dispute, the parties shall submit
those disputes to U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, keeping in mind
Judge Hegarty’s Practice Standard III.C (concerning prerequisites for discovery-
related motions).
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
31
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------- x
FREE COUNTRY LTD,
Plaintiff, 16 CV 8746 (JSR)
-v- OPINION
BRIAN DRENNEN, MATTHEW VANDER

WYDEN, ROUSSO APPAREL GROUP, INC.
and SANTA FE APPAREL, LLC,
Defendants.
JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
This dispute comes before the Court after Plaintiff Free Country
LTD ("Free Country") moved ex parte for an order to show cause for a
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order ("TRO") against
defendants Brian Drennen, Matthew Vander Wyden, Rousso Apparel Group,
Inc. ("Rousso") , and Santa Fe Apparel, LLC ("Santa Fe") (collectively,
the "defendants"). In brief, plaintiff alleges that its former
employees, defendants Drennen and Vander Wyden, have misappropriated
plaintiff's trade secrets in order to establish a competing product
line for defendants Rousso and Santa Fe. Initially, the Court granted
the plaintiff's motion by Order dated November 10, 2016, which it
amended on November 17, 2016. Subsequently, however, after counsel for
defendants had appeared, the Court held a three-day evidentiary
hearing to put the TRO to the test of the adversary system.
Thereafter, on the basis of the Court's assessment of the evidence
presented at that hearing (including its assessment of the witnesses'
demeanor and credibility), the Court by Order dated December 9, 2016
granted in part plaintiff's motion for a renewed TRO by prohibiting

defendants from using or disseminating plaintiff's confidential
information, but denied plaintiff's request that defendants be
the fall 2017 season. This Opinion explains the reasons for these
post-hearing rulings.
Plaintiff Free Country is an apparel manufacturer and wholesaler
with approximately 65 employees. See transcript of evidentiary hearing
("Tr.") 172:5-10. Plaintiff maintains a wide variety of business
information on a shared network system, id. at 177-178, and provides
email accounts to its employees, id. at 178:7-9. Employees access
these systems by logging in to password-protected computers provided
by Free Country, id. at 267:20-23, and plaintiff generally requires
new hires to sign a confidentiality agreement and an acknowledgement
of the company's handbook. Id. at 179:19-25. By signing the documents,
the employees agree to not disseminate Free Country's proprietary
information. Id. at 180-181; 190-191.
In August 2014, plaintiff hired defendant Drennen, who had 20
years of experience in the apparel industry, to oversee Free Country's
Men's and Ladies' active wear as Vice President of Sales. Id. at
173:22-174:11; 382:13-25. In November 2015, plaintiff hired defendant
Vander Wyden, who had 30 years of industry experience, as a director
of sales for Men's outerwear. Id. at 176:2-6; 282:9-23. 1
1 While it is disputed whether Vander Wyden signed a confidentiality

agreement and acknowledgement of the company's handbook, Tr. 321:2-14,
Vander Wyden was aware that by accepting employment at Free Country he
was bound not to disclose Free Country's confidential information. Id.
2
Both Drennen and Vander Wyden had a practice of transferring
materials from Free Country's server during their employment. In or
sharing program called "Dropbox," id. at 345:25-346:3, which allows
users to transfer information among "linked" devices using an online
"cloud" account. Id. at 85:2-86:2; 21:22-22:10. Drennen testified that
he used the program to aid his work while he was on the road or at
home, and linked three personal devices to his Dropbox account while
at Free Country: an Android phone, an iPad, and an iMac. Id. at 346:6-
16. Defendant Vander Wyden, in turn, frequently emailed to himself
Free Country's "Master Contact List," id. at 327:16-23, which
contained the contact information for the company's clients, id. at
231:17-19. Vander Wyden testified that he used the list while
traveling on Free Country's behalf. Id. at 334:12-20.
Neither Drennen nor Vander Wyden were happy at Free Country. Id.
at 290:14-17; 430:9-16. In late September 2016, Drennen and Vander
Wyden began employment negotiations with defendant Rousso.2 Id. at
315:10-20. Vander Wyden subsequently resigned from Free Country on
October 13, 2016, after receiving an offer to create a competing
product line for Rousso's newly-formed division, "Mountain and Isles."
Id. 279:2-3; 316:11-15. Prior to his departure, however, Vander Wyden
at 281-284.
2 Defendant Santa Fe is an affiliate of Rousso located in the same
office space as Mountain and Isles. Tr. 315:2-317:3. It does not
appear that defendants were in negotiations with Santa Fe. Id.
3
emailed to his personal address on October 10 and 11, 2016 copies of
several documents, including Free Country's Master Contact List and an
at 291-293.
The same day that Vander Wyden resigned, Drennen began
transferring a substantial quantity of information from Free Country's
server into his Dropbox account, including customer orders and design
information for the fall 2017 season. 3 Id. at 89:21-90:5; 201:3-21.
Drennen made an additional transfer on October 18, 2016, id. at 126:8-
17, and resigned from Free Country three days later on October 21,
2016 to join Mountain and Isles, id. at 111:9-12. Drennen uninstalled
Dropbox from his Free Country computer the same day. Id. at 115:15-20.
During the evidentiary hearing, Drennen testified that he transferred
the materials so that he could review the files for personal
information, id. at 353:1-10, and that he deleted any Free Country
documents by October 22, 2016, id. at 358:10-15. The Court entirely
discredits the first statement, but is inclined to credit the second
statement.
Free Country discovered the document transfers after reviewing
Drennen's laptop and issued cease and desist letters to defendants
Drennen and Vander Wyden on October 27, 2016. 4 Id. at 199:17-200:17;
3 The precise quantity is subject to dispute. Free Country estimates

that defendant Drennen transferred nearly 50,000 files and 257GB of
information. See Tr. at 89:21-90:5. Defendant Drennen argues that the
amount is much smaller. Id. at 97:2-98:11.
4 The parties dispute the precise day that Drennen received the
4
415:15-416:3; 417:12-24. On November 10, 2016, plaintiff moved ex
parte for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and
temporary reBtraining order, alleglr19 among oLher cau5e5 of action
that defendants had misappropriated Free Country's trade secrets in
violation of New York law and the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA"),
18 U.S.C. § 1831. See ECF No. 1. The Court granted plaintiff's motion,
see ECF No. 9, and held a hearing on the order to show cause on
November 15, 2016. On November 17, 2016, the Court extended and
amended its order to prohibit defendants Drennen and Vander Wyden from
soliciting Free Country's customers unless defendants could show that
such customer contact information was in their possession prior to
their employment at Free Country. See ECF No. 17. The amended order
also required that defendant Drennen permit inspection of his Dropbox
account by a neutral forensic expert agreed upon by the parties or
appointed by the Court. Id. By consent orders dated November 20 and
21, 2016, the Court appointed Robert Knudsen as the neutral forensic
expert and established a protocol for his examination of the account.
See ECF No. 18, 19. Mr. Knudsen submitted his report to the Court on
November 29, 2016, which the Court provided to the parties the
following day. The Court subsequently held an evidentiary hearing on
the temporary restraining order on December 5, 7, and 8, 2016, the key
issue of which was whether the Court should prohibit defendants
Drennen and Vander Wyden from soliciting Free Country's customers in
letter, id. at 415:10-21, but this fact is immaterial to the current

proceedings.
5
connection with the fall 2017 season. By order dated December 9, 2016,
the Court granted in part plaintiff's motion for a renewed TRO, but
denied the ｰｾｯ､＠ｮｯＭｬｾ｣ｴ＠ｰｲｯｶｾｮＮ＠
The standard for an entry of a TRO is essentially the same as for
a preliminary injunction. Andino v. Fischer, SSS F. Supp. 2d 418, 419
(S.D.N.Y. 2008). The main differences are, first, that a TRO is often
granted ex parte but thereafter has a limited lifespan and, second,
that even where (as here) there is a subsequent adversarial hearing on
the TRO, it typically occurs before there has been extensive
discovery. Therefore, a TRO, perhaps even more so than a preliminary
injunction, is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should
not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the
burden of persuasion." JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., 618
F. App'x 31, 33 (2d Cir. 201S) (quoting Sussman v. Crawford, 488 F.3d
136, 139 (2d Cir. 2007)).
A party seeking a TRO, like one seeking a preliminary injunction,
must typically show four elements: (1) a likelihood of success on the
ultimate merits of the lawsuit; (2) a likelihood that the moving party
will suffer irreparable harm if a TRO is not granted; (3) that the
balance of hardships tips in the moving party's favor; and (4) that
the public interest is not disserved by the relief granted. Id.
(citing Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 79-80 (2d Cir. 2010)). A
TRO, like a preliminary injunction, is "never awarded as of right,"
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., SSS U.S. 7, 24 (2008), and
6
whether to grant such relief "rests in the sound discretion of the
district court," JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc., 917 F.2d 75, 79
(:id ｃｾｲＮ＠ 1000).
The underlying substantive claims largely rest on alleged
misappropriation of Free Country's trade secrets. The requirements for
showing a misappropriation of a trade secret are similar under state
and federal law. Under New York law, a party must demonstrate: (1)
that it possessed a trade secret, and (2) that the defendants used
that trade secret in breach of an agreement, confidential relationship
or duty, or as a result of discovery by improper means. N. Atl.
Instruments, Inc. v. Haber, 188 F.3d 38, 43-44 (2d Cir. 1999)
Similarly, under the DTSA, a party must show "an unconsented
disclosure or use of a trade secret by one who (i) used improper means
to acquire the secret, or, (ii) at the time of disclosure, knew or had
reason to know that the trade secret was acquired through improper
means, under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the
secrecy of the trade secret, or derived from or through a person who
owed such a duty." Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v.
Trizetto Grp., Inc., No. 15CV211LGSRLE, 2016 WL 5338550, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3) (A)-(B))
The Court finds at the outset that there is no evidence of any
wrongdoing by the corporate defendants, Rousso and Santa Fe. While
their clear (and legitimate) intent was to go into direct competition
with Free Country, they appear to have been unaware prior to this
7
lawsuit that defendants Drennen and Vander Wyden transferred any
allegedly confidential information to their personal possession, and
possession of such information. See id. at 239:24-240:8; 317:4-7;
318:10-15. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to
show a likelihood of success on the merits against defendants Rousso
and Santa Fe.s
Defendants Drennen and Vander Wyden present a closer call. While
they each arguably misappropriated plaintiff's information (see
infra), there is no evidence that defendants Drennen and Vander Wyden
colluded with each other for this purpose or exchanged any allegedly
confidential information between themselves. 6 See id. at 287:3-22;

ｾＭＭｾ＠
360:20-362:14. The Court must therefore address the applicability of a
TRO against these defendants separately, because the nature of the
information allegedly misappropriated by each defendant differs. The
Court begins with defendant Vander Wyden.
Plaintiff alleges that Vander Wyden misappropriated two types of
proprietary information: Free Country's client list and Free Country's
5 As the Court stated on the record, however, at this point it is not

appropriate to dismiss defendants Rousso and Santa Fe from the
proceedings because they may still be necessary as relief defendants,
depending on any future injunctive action by the Court. See Tr. at
432:13-25.
6 Plaintiff's sole "evidence" of collusion in this respect is that
defendants jointly traveled to China on a business trip after
beginning their employment at Mountain and Isles. Tr. 462:22-463:1.
Such joint travel is unsurprising, however, because Drennen and Vander
Wyden are employed by the same entity for the same purpose of
promoting a new line of apparel.
8
pricing information relating to Free Country's products. Although the
Court has some misgivings about Vander Wyden's credibility in certain
Court is not persuaded that either of the two kinds of information he
is accused of misappropriating are trade secrets. Under Second Circuit
precedent, a customer list "developed by a business through
substantial effort and kept in confidence may be treated as a trade
secret . . provided the information it contains is not otherwise
readily ascertainable." N. Atl. Instruments, Inc. v. Haber, 188 F.3d
38, 46 (2d Cir. 1999) . 7 "The question of whether or not a customer
list is a trade secret is generally a question of fact." A.F.A. Tours,
Inc. v. Whitchurch, 937 F.2d 82, 89 (2d Cir. 1991). Based on the
Court's review of plaintiff's client list, Free Country's customers
are well-known apparel retailers whose identities are not protected
(indeed, many are named in plaintiff's complaint). The contact
information for these companies is also readily ascertainable by
calling the companies' general lines, Tr. 334:25-335:4, through
external sources such as Linkedin and Google, id. at 383:1-385:23, and
directories of buyers in the apparel industry, id. at 296:16-20.
Indeed, plaintiff's Executive Vice President, Jody Schwartz, admitted
7 The DTSA similarly defines a trade secret, among other things, as

any business information that (A) "the owner thereof has taken
reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) "the
information derives independent economic value ... from not being
generally known . . . [or] readily ascertainable . . . [to] another person
who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the
information [ . ] " 1 8 U . S . C . 1 8 3 9 ( 3 ) (A) - ( B )
9
during testimony that the identities and contact information of Free
Country's clients are known outside the company. Id. at 245:9-12. The
ｏ］ｾＭ｜ｯ＠ -\oh==="=== L'._,.=Jo -\oh=-\o ｆｬ］ｾｮＭ｜ｯｻ＠ h=_, L,,l_L,d l,._., _,)-•._.», = ll_J.__,ll_)-•==_J
of success on the merits for misappropriation of Free Country's
contact list.
Plaintiff's allegations concerning Free Country's pricing
information are similarly flawed. Data relating to pricing can
constitute a trade secret under some circumstances. In re Dana Corp.,
574 F.3d 129, 152 (2d Cir. 2009). However, this is generally where a
company uses some type of proprietary formula that gives it a unique
advantage, such as a complex pricing or trading algorithm in a
financial business. See Saks Inc. v. Attachmate Corp., No. 14 CIV.
4902 CM, 2015 WL 1841136, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2015); Johnson
Controls, Inc. v. A.P.T. Critical Sys., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 525,
537-38 (S.O.N.Y. 2004). On the other hand, information relating to
Free Country's underlying mechanics, such as the prices of materials
and costs of manufacturing, are not trade secrets because "any
seller's publicly-available prices signal to competitors some
information about the underlying mechanics of the seller's pricing
structure." Silipos, Inc. v. Bickel, No. 1:06-CV-02205, 2006 WL
2265055, at *4-5 (S.O.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2006); see Prod. Res. Grp., L.L.C.
v. Oberman, No. 03 CIV. 5366 (JGK), 2003 WL 22350939, at *14 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 27, 2003).
Here, Free Country has offered no evidence that it prices,
10
sources, or manufactures its clothing line using anything other than
industry practice. Defendant Drennen, Free Country's former employee,
testified that Free Country determined pricing using "basic sourcing
information" commonly utilized in the industry and easily reverse
engineered. Tr. at 366:11-368:6. While this testimony may be self-
serving on Drennen's part, Free Country has failed to present any
convincing evidence to the contrary. 8 Accordingly, the Court finds at
this time that plaintiff has failed show that the pricing information
at issue constitutes a trade secret for the purposes of Free Country's
misappropriation claim.9
Furthermore, even if plaintiff could make such a showing,
plaintiff has failed to show the second prong of its misappropriation
claim: that defendant Vander Wyden will use such pricing information
in breach of an agreement or confidential relationship. Plaintiff does
not argue that Vander Wyden currently possesses any specific documents
containing Free Country's pricing information. Rather, plaintiff
argues that Vander Wyden was privy to such information as part of his
responsibilities at Free Country, and should be prohibited from
working for a competitor because the information now resides in his
8 In this regard, plaintiff presented only Ms. Schwartz's broad

statements that such information was part of Free Country's "secret
sauce" and competitors could "potentially undercut [Free Country's]
prices." Id. at 203:15-21; 204:19-12. This latter, of course, smacks
more of free market competition than misappropriation.
9 All the findings of fact made in this Opinion are, of course, made
only for the preliminary purposes of adjudicating the TRO and are not
binding or final for any other purpose.
11
head.
New York law recognizes a specific means for plaintiff to protect
EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 1999);
Janus et Cie v. Kahnke, No. 12 CIV. 7201 (WHP), 2013 WL 5405543, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2013). In the absence of such a provision, courts
in this Circuit will restrict an individual's employment only where
the individual has stolen its former employer's trade secrets and
there is a high probability that the individual will "inevitably
disclose" this information to its new employer. Id.
Here, plaintiff has failed to show that defendant Vander Wyden
has stolen proprietary information relating to pricing, let alone that
Vander Wyden will inevitably disclose such information. To be sure,
Vander Wyden's explanation for how he "accidentally" emailed to
himself four product designs prior to his departure from Free Country
is unworthy of belief. Tr. 291-293. Nonetheless, the information
contained in these decades-old designs is unlikely a trade secret, and
even if it were, it has nothing to do with pricing. 10 The possibility
10Contrary to plaintiff's assertion at the evidentiary hearing, the

Court is aware of no presumption of inevitable disclosure where a
defendant has copied some of plaintiff's confidential information.
Copying can provide strong (and sometimes overwhelming) circumstantial
evidence that the information is valuable and that defendant intends
to use it. Here, however, the alleged transfer was miniscule (four
product designs) and was unrelated to alleged proprietary information
(pricing). Given these circumstances, and the fact that the TRO, as
amended, continues to prohibit defendant from using or disclosing
plaintiff's proprietary information, see ECF No. 27, the Court is not
persuaded that any disclosure of proprietary information is
inevitable.
12
that Vander Wyden may have been interested in designs does not make it
highly likely that he would disclose confidential information
concerning Free Country's pricing.11
The Court is also not convinced that any injuries that might flow
from the two kinds of information that Vander Wyden is accused of
misappropriating cannot be remedied by money damages. As to the
customer lists, while the loss of a customer relationship can result
in irreparable harm where the relationship would otherwise have
produced "an indeterminate amount of business in years to come," Marsh
USA Inc. v. Karasaki, No. 08 CIV. 4195 (JGK), 2008 WL 4778239, at *14
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2008) (quoting Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 173
F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1999) ), plaintiff here does not argue that there
will be any such ongoing loss. As for the pricing information, there
is no evidence that Vander Wyden's allegedly misappropriated pricing
information will be relevant beyond the fall 2017 season, see Tr.
373:13-375:8; 466:2-8; 487:3-11, or that plaintiff will suffer any
ongoing loss of customer goodwill. Instead, plaintiff claims that
Vander Wyden will use its pricing information to undercut its business
with a defined subset of its customers for a discrete period of time,
which can easily be quantified at trial. See Liberty Power Corp., LLC
v. Katz, No. 10-CV-1938 NGG CLP, 2011 WL 256216, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Jan.
11 Plaintiff's citation to Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, No. 16-CV-

03166-JST, 2016 WL 3212457, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2016) is not to
the contrary (and, of course, is not binding on the Court in any
event). There, the court granted an ex parte motion for a temporary
restraining order where the defendant transferred a broad range of
confidential information to her computer prior to her resignation. The
13
26, 2011) (finding that harm was not irreparable where plaintiff
alleged that defendant's misappropriation would result in lost
As for the balance of the equities, there is no dispute that a
temporary restraining order prohibiting Vander Wyden from selling to
Free Country's customers for the fall 2017 season would effectively
mean that Vander Wyden could not work for his new employer. Tr.
388:24-389:23; 482:17-483:1. This has implications not only for Vander
Wyden's personal welfare, but future employment prospects as well. Id.
at 388:24-389:23.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff has failed to
show that a TRO prohibiting Vander Wyden from selling to Free
Country's customers for the fall 2017 season is warranted.
The Court next turns to plaintiff's request for a TRO against
defendant Drennen. It is clear that Drennen expressly copied a large
amount of Free Country's information immediately prior to his
resignation, id. at 97:2-98:11, and the Court concludes that his claim
that he did so solely to help him sort out which information was
personal and which was not is preposterous. While plaintiff does not
specify which of the copied documents, including customers sales
information, design packages, and production packages for past,
present, and future business, id. at 201:3-202:13, are proprietary,
the Court agrees with plaintiff that the information taken as a whole
is a trade secret critical to plaintiff's business. See id. at 456:23-
nature of defendant Vander Wyden's transfer is materially different.

14
457:4 ("[T]his is not simply just about a single CAD or even a master
contact list or any single document. It is the body of the information
ｴｨｾ＠ｗｾｑ＠ found in ｾｨ･＠ Drennen Dropbox folder thal riot only concerns
the historical business of Free Country but its current business and
its prospective business"); see also id. at 457:5-12.
Plaintiff, however, has failed to show a likelihood that
defendant Drennen used the proprietary information transferred to his
Dropbox account for an improper purpose, or is likely to do so in the
future. During the evidentiary hearing, Drennen testified that he had
deleted any Free Country-related information from his Dropbox account
by October 22, 2016, id. at 358:10-15, and that he did not transfer
any Free Country information prior to its deletion. Id. at 360:20-
362:14. Defendant Vander Wyden similarly testified that he never
accessed Drennen's Dropbox account or received Free Country
information from Drennen. Id. at 287:3-22.
This testimony is materially corroborated by the neutral forensic
analyst. Specifically, the forensic analysis conducted by Knudsen
confirmed that Drennen has deleted all but 486 files from his Dropbox,
id. at 26:20-24, none of which appear to contain proprietary
information. There is also no evidence that Drennen has transferred
Free Country's materials to another device, or that Drennen lied about
the date on which he deleted Free Country's files. 12
12 Of course, Knudsen did not provide a complete account of Drennen's

Dropbox activity because his review protocol did not require him to do
so. Id. at 12:2-21, 17:3-20; 22:5-14. At this stage of the
proceedings, however, the Court is not prepared to draw an adverse
15
To be sure, the finding that Drennen no longer possesses Free
Country's materials does not mean that Drennen did not look at the
theoretically lodge an inevitable disclosure claim based on the
information still in Drennen's head. But this argument would
nonetheless fail. Plaintiff concedes that the materials transferred by
Drennen are only useful to a competitor as a "bodyu of information.
See id. at 456:23-457:4. This body is enormous. Drennen transferred
nearly 50,000 files, id. at 89:23-25, and while only a subset of these
files may be proprietary, plaintiff concedes that even individual
documents contain a "tremendousu amount of information. Id. at 210:5-
11. Drennen possessed the files at issue for a maximum of nine days,
and the Court is not persuaded that Drennen could have memorized
gigabytes of data concerning Free Country's past, present, and future
business in such a short period of time. See, e.g., Robert Half Int'l,
Inc. v. Dunn, No. 5:13-CV-974, 2013 WL 10829925, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Oct.
29, 2013) (rejecting inevitable disclosure claim because there was no
evidence that defendant was still in possession of plaintiff's
confidential information). Accordingly, in the absence of evidence of
misuse, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood
of success on the merits of its misappropriation claim against
Drennen.
inference against Drennen because of an incomplete protocol jointly

proposed and agreed upon by the plaintiff. It should further be noted
that Drennen has voluntarily consented to the forensic analyst
deleting the remaining files in his Dropbox account. Id. at 431:9-11.
16
Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to show that it will suffer any
imminent irreparable harm from Drennen's copying that now warrants
injunotivo relief. Irreparable harm rcquireB an "l11Jury thaL ｬｾ＠
neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent." N.Y. ex rel.
Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 660 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting
Forest City Daly Hous., Inc. v. Town of N. Hempstead, 175 F.3d 144,
153 (2d Cir.1999)). As set forth at the evidentiary hearing,
plaintiff's alleged injury arises out of lost sales for the fall 2017
season. Tr. 489:9-490:19. The parties do not negotiate these sales
until January and February 2017, and do not ship their products until
closer to the season. Id. Since the Court has expedited discovery,
plaintiff has ample time to determine whether defendant Drennen and
Vander Wyden are, notwithstanding their denials, still in possession
of any proprietary information. Should defendants have been less than
forthcoming, the Court has scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing
to conclude by no later than January 31, 2017, and plaintiff may move
for a preliminary injunction upon discovery of any material
information. At that time, the Court has a variety of means to avoid
any imminent irreparable harm to the plaintiff, including prohibiting
defendants from completing any sales to Free Country's past and
present customers. Given the lack of imminence at the present time,
however, the balance of the hardships tips in defendant Drennen's
favor for the same reasons articulated for defendant Vander Wyden.
Finally, as in Vander Wyden's case, the equities favor not
17
preventing Drennen from engaging in his new employment absent a
greater showing than plaintiff has so far made.
Der c..11 the ｦｯｲ｣ｧｾｮ＠ rcoaona 1 lhc CvuLlr

I
.J...r1 lLa 0.LUe.L JoLeu
December 9, 2016 granted in part plaintiff's motion for a renewed TRO,
but rejected plaintiff's request that defendants be prohibited from
soliciting Free Country's customers for the fall 2017 season.
Dated: New York, New York

December.3'.:}, 2016 ｾｻ＠ Yu.S.D.J.
18
Case 5:17-cv-00017-EJD Document 15 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 8
9 SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
OOO BRUNSWICK RAIL
11 MANAGEMENT, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00017-EJD
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ EX

13 v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR SEIZURE

AND PRESERVATION ORDERS,
14 RICHARD SULTANOV, et al., EXPEDITED DISCOVERY,
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
15 Defendants. AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16 Re: Dkt. No. 3
17 Plaintiffs OOO Brunswick Rail Management and Brunswick Rail Group Limited (together,
18 “Brunswick”) allege that defendants Richard Sultanov and Paul Ostling misappropriated
19 Brunswick’s confidential information. Complaint ¶¶ 31–48. Before the Court is Brunswick’s ex
20 parte application for:
21 (1) a seizure order under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836;
22 (2) a seizure and preservation order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 64 and 65, the Court’s inherent
23 authority, and the All Writs Act, 27 U.S.C. § 1651(a);
24 (3) expedited discovery;
25 (4) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); and
26 (5) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
27 1
Case No.: 5:17-cv-00017-EJD
28 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR SEIZURE AND PRESERVATION ORDERS, EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1 Dkt. No. 3. Brunswick’s motion will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2 I. BACKGROUND
3 Defendants Sultanov and Ostling are former employees of Brunswick. Brief in Support of
4 Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application (“Brief”) at 2–3, Dkt. No. 4. Brunswick alleges that both Sultanov
5 and Ostling misappropriated trade secrets in November and December 2016. Id. at 5.
6 After noticing “unusually secretive” behavior from Sultanov, Brunswick investigated his
7 work email account and discovered that he had sent several confidential documents to his personal
8 email account without authorization; he then deleted the sent messages and emptied his trash
9 folder. Id. at 5–7, 9. The investigation further revealed that Sultanov had been communicating by
10 phone with Ostling (who had since resigned from Brunswick) and a representative of one of
11 Brunswick’s creditors, whom Sultanov was explicitly prohibited from contacting. Id. at 7. Ostling,
12 too, received unauthorized confidential materials at his personal email account (via his former
13 personal assistant, who remained at Brunswick), which he then forwarded to the creditor’s
14 representative and to Sultanov. Id. at 8. Sultanov also refuses to return a company-issued mobile
15 phone and laptop. Id. at 1.
16 Brunswick believes that Sultanov and Ostling “have already disclosed and plan to continue
17 to disclose the trade secrets to creditors in order to disadvantage Brunswick in its ongoing
18 negotiations” related to Brunswick’s debt restructuring. Id. at 1.
19 II. DISCUSSION
20 A. Preservation and Seizure
21 Parties have a duty to preserve evidence once a complaint is filed. Echostar Satellite LLC
22 v. Freetech, Inc., No. C-07-06124 JW, 2009 WL 8399038, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009). To
23 obtain an order imposing stricter preservation requirements, a party must make “some showing of
24 a significant concern that potentially relevant evidence will be destroyed . . . .” Bright Sols. for
25 Dyslexia, Inc. v. Doe 1, No. 15-CV-01618-JSC, 2015 WL 5159125, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2,
26 2015). To determine whether a preservation order is necessary, courts consider (1) threats to
27 2
1 preservation of the evidence, (2) irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking preservation,
2 and (3) the capability of the custodian to maintain the evidence sought to be preserved. Echostar,
3 2009 WL 8399308, at *2.
4 Brunswick has satisfied these three requirements. First, there is a risk that Sultanov and
5 Ostling will delete relevant material from their email accounts, which are hosted by Google (for
6 the address richard.sultanov@gmail.com) and Rackspace (for the address
7 paul.ostling@pauljostling.com). There is also a risk that Google and Rackspace might delete
8 material themselves (for instance, by automatically erasing emails that Sultanov or Ostling moved
9 to their trash folders). See, e.g., Bright Sols., 2015 WL 5159125, at *3 (noting that under Google’s
10 “regular business practices, user data is routinely destroyed within months after a user deletes that
11 information”). Second, deletion of this material would cause irreparable harm to Brunswick.
12 Third, it is within the reasonable capabilities of Google and Rackspace to preserve material
13 associated with Sultanov and Ostling’s accounts. Brunswick’s need for preservation is all the more
14 acute because Rackspace and Google, as nonparties, have no obligation to preserve this
15 information absent a court order. Id. at *3 (granting an order directing nonparties eBay, PayPal,
16 and Google “to preserve documents, data, and records”).
17 Brunswick also seeks an order directing seizure of information on Sultanov and Ostling’s
18 digital accounts by requiring Google and Rackspace to deliver physical copies to the Court with
19 assistance from the U.S. Marshals. Brief at 16–17. The Court finds that physical copies of the data
20 are unnecessary because Google and Rackspace will be required to preserve the data under their
21 own custody.
22 Finally, Brunswick seeks an order under the DTSA to seize the company-issued laptop and
23 mobile phone in Sultanov’s possession. The DTSA provides that a “court may, upon ex parte
24 application but only in extraordinary circumstances, issue an order providing for the seizure of
25 property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret that is the
26 subject of the action” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(i). A court may issue a seizure order only if,
27 3
1 among other requirements, an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 or another form of equitable relief
2 would be inadequate. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii). Here, the Court finds that seizure under the
3 DTSA is unnecessary because the Court will order that Sultanov must deliver these devices to the
4 Court at the time of the hearing scheduled below, and in the meantime, the devices may not be
5 accessed or modified.
6 C. Expedited Discovery
7 Courts may allow expedited discovery for good cause. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron
8 Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (concluding that the “good cause” standard
9 applies); see also MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-26, No. 11-CV-03679 EJD, 2011 WL 3473808, at *2
10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011) (“A court may authorize early discovery before the Rule 26(f)
11 conference for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interest of justice. . . . Courts
12 within the Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown ‘good cause’ for the
13 early discovery.”) “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in
14 consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.”
15 Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276.
16 Brunswick fails to show good cause because it does not adequately explain the need for
17 expedited discovery. Brunswick may request expedited discovery in a separate motion.
18 D. TRO and Preliminary Injunction
19 The standards for issuing a TRO and preliminary injunction are the same. New Motor
20 Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977). A preliminary
21 injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
22 plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22
23 (2008). The plaintiff must show (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that it is likely to
24 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in
25 its favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d
26 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009).
27 4
1 A preliminary injunction is also appropriate if “serious questions going to the merits were
2 raised and the balance of the hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Alliance for the Wild
3 Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010).
4 “These formulations are not different tests but represent two points on a sliding scale in
5 which the degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success on the merits
6 decreases.” Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of the Anchorage Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d
7 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[u]nder either formulation, the moving party must demonstrate a
8 significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective of the magnitude of the injury.” Id.
9 Brunswick has satisfied the requirements for a TRO. First, Brunswick has shown that it
10 will likely succeed on the merits of its trade secrets claims. Brunswick’s evidence shows that
11 Sultanov and Ostling improperly disseminated confidential information—e.g., by emailing
12 documents to their personal accounts and then sending that information to third parties. That
13 information likely constituted protectable trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets
14 Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1. Second, Brunswick has shown that it will likely suffer irreparable
15 harm if the Court does not grant injunctive relief. Dissemination of the confidential information to
16 Brunswick’s creditors, competitors, and adverse parties in arbitration would cause Brunswick
17 irreparable harm. Finally, the balance of equities weighs in Brunswick’s favor, and a TRO would
18 serve the public interest.
19 In addition, an ex parte TRO application must satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1), under which
20 a TRO may issue only if “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice
21 and the reasons why it should not be required.” The declaration of Gabriel M. Ramsey in support
22 of Brunswick’s application states that “notice would render the requested relief ineffective” and
23 that district courts in the Ninth Circuit have granted relief in similar circumstances. Dkt. No. 6 at
24 1–2.
25
26
27 5
1 E. Service by Mail, Email, and Facsimile
2 The Court declines to adopt Brunswick’s proposed order for alternative means of service
3 without a showing that such means are necessary.
4 III. ORDER
5 Brunswick’s application is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court
6 orders that:
7 1. Within 72 hours of receiving this Order, Rackspace Hosting, Inc. and/or Rackspace
8 US, Inc. shall preserve all data associated with the account paul.ostling@pauljostling.com. Within
9 seven days of preservation, Rackspace Hosting, Inc. and/or Rackspace US, Inc. shall notify the
10 Court in writing that preservation has occurred.
11 2. Within 72 hours of receiving this Order, Google, Inc. shall preserve all data
12 associated with the account richard.sultanov@gmail.com. Within seven days of preservation,

13 Google, Inc. shall notify the Court in writing that preservation has occurred.
14 3. Plaintiffs shall facilitate service of copies of this Order by delivery to the registered
15 California agents for service of process for Google, Inc., Rackspace Hosting, Inc., and Rackspace
16 US, Inc., with email copies to their in-house legal departments, subpoena compliance departments,
17 or court order compliance departments.
18 4. Defendants Richard Sultanov and Paul Ostling must appear before this Court on
19 January 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 at 280 1st St., San Jose, CA 95113 to show cause
20 why a preliminary injunction should not be made and entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 granting the
21 following relief, and that pending the hearing and ruling on Brunswick’s request for a preliminary
22 injunction, the Court issues this Order:
23 a. restraining and enjoining Defendant Richard Sultanov, and all those acting in
24 concert or participation with him, from accessing or modifying electronic
25 devices issued to him by Brunswick, including mobile phones and laptops,
26 unless otherwise directed by this Court;
27 6
1 b. directing Defendant Richard Sultanov to bring the electronic devices issued to
2 him by Brunswick, including mobile phones and laptops, to the January 20
3 hearing and deliver those devices to the Court’s custody;
4 c. restraining and enjoining Defendants, and all those acting in concert or
5 participation with them from destroying, or disposing any evidence or other
6 materials, in any form, relating to this action and the issues raised herein,
7 including, without limitation, all devices, electronic media, cloud storage,
8 telephones and all copies of any and all documents, media and/or other
9 materials, containing, identifying, describing, reflecting or referencing
10 Plaintiffs’ confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information, and any and all
11 documents, data and information which was obtained by Defendants from, or
12 by virtue of their employment with Plaintiffs, including all current or archived

13 media, emails, chats, texts, documents, electronic logs, metadata, storage,
14 directories, telephone logs, telephones, computer, laptops, software or
15 hardware;
16 d. restraining and enjoining Defendants, and all those acting in concert or
17 participation with them, from violating their employment agreements,
18 confidentiality agreements, IT policies, or fiduciary duties, duties of loyalty and
19 other obligations to Plaintiffs, including without limitation the portions of their
20 agreements prohibiting the use, disclosure or dissemination of Plaintiffs’
21 confidential, proprietary or trade secret information, and their fiduciary duties and
22 duties of loyalty not to use, disclose or disseminate such information; restraining
23 and enjoining Defendants, and all those acting in concert or participation with
24 them, from communicating confidential, proprietary or trade secret information to
25 contractual counterparties of Plaintiffs, including any creditors or related parties, or
26 otherwise interfering with or injuring relations, goodwill or negotiations with any
27 7
1 contractual counterparties, including creditors or related parties, or communicating
2 regarding Plaintiffs’ business or dealings with such parties.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated: January 6, 2017 at 11:02 a.m.
6
7
______________________________________
8 EDWARD J. DAVILA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 8
PUBLIC LAW 114–153—MAY 11, 2016
DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT OF 2016

kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
VerDate Mar 15 2010 22:23 Jun 08, 2016 Jkt 059139 PO 00153 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579 Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL153.114 PUBL153
130 STAT. 376 PUBLIC LAW 114–153—MAY 11, 2016
Public Law 114–153

114th Congress
An Act
May 11, 2016 To amend chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code, to provide Federal jurisdiction
[S. 1890] for the theft of trade secrets, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

Defend Trade the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Secrets Act of
2016. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
18 USC 1 note.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defend Trade Secrets Act of
2016’’.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1836 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
‘‘(b) PRIVATE CIVIL ACTIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An owner of a trade secret that is mis-
appropriated may bring a civil action under this subsection
if the trade secret is related to a product or service used
in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.
‘‘(2) CIVIL SEIZURE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(i) APPLICATION.—Based on an affidavit or verified
complaint satisfying the requirements of this para-
graph, the court may, upon ex parte application but
only in extraordinary circumstances, issue an order
providing for the seizure of property necessary to pre-
vent the propagation or dissemination of the trade
secret that is the subject of the action.
‘‘(ii) REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUING ORDER.—The
court may not grant an application under clause (i)
unless the court finds that it clearly appears from
specific facts that—
‘‘(I) an order issued pursuant to Rule 65 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or another
form of equitable relief would be inadequate to
achieve the purpose of this paragraph because the
party to which the order would be issued would
evade, avoid, or otherwise not comply with such
an order;
‘‘(II) an immediate and irreparable injury will
occur if such seizure is not ordered;
‘‘(III) the harm to the applicant of denying
the application outweighs the harm to the legiti-
mate interests of the person against whom seizure
would be ordered of granting the application and
PUBLIC LAW 114–153—MAY 11, 2016 130 STAT. 377
substantially outweighs the harm to any third par-

ties who may be harmed by such seizure;
‘‘(IV) the applicant is likely to succeed in
showing that—
‘‘(aa) the information is a trade secret;
and
‘‘(bb) the person against whom seizure
would be ordered—
‘‘(AA) misappropriated the trade
secret of the applicant by improper means;
or
‘‘(BB) conspired to use improper
means to misappropriate the trade secret
of the applicant;
‘‘(V) the person against whom seizure would
be ordered has actual possession of—
‘‘(aa) the trade secret; and
‘‘(bb) any property to be seized;
‘‘(VI) the application describes with reasonable
particularity the matter to be seized and, to the
extent reasonable under the circumstances, identi-
fies the location where the matter is to be seized;
‘‘(VII) the person against whom seizure would
be ordered, or persons acting in concert with such
person, would destroy, move, hide, or otherwise
make such matter inaccessible to the court, if the
applicant were to proceed on notice to such person;
and
‘‘(VIII) the applicant has not publicized the
requested seizure.
‘‘(B) ELEMENTS OF ORDER.—If an order is issued under
subparagraph (A), it shall—
‘‘(i) set forth findings of fact and conclusions of
law required for the order;
‘‘(ii) provide for the narrowest seizure of property
necessary to achieve the purpose of this paragraph
and direct that the seizure be conducted in a manner
that minimizes any interruption of the business oper-
ations of third parties and, to the extent possible,
does not interrupt the legitimate business operations
of the person accused of misappropriating the trade
secret;
‘‘(iii)(I) be accompanied by an order protecting the
seized property from disclosure by prohibiting access
by the applicant or the person against whom the order
is directed, and prohibiting any copies, in whole or
in part, of the seized property, to prevent undue dam-
age to the party against whom the order has issued
or others, until such parties have an opportunity to
be heard in court; and
‘‘(II) provide that if access is granted by the court
to the applicant or the person against whom the order
is directed, the access shall be consistent with subpara-
graph (D);
‘‘(iv) provide guidance to the law enforcement offi-
cials executing the seizure that clearly delineates the
scope of the authority of the officials, including—
‘‘(I) the hours during which the seizure may

be executed; and
‘‘(II) whether force may be used to access
locked areas;
Deadline. ‘‘(v) set a date for a hearing described in subpara-
Notification. graph (F) at the earliest possible time, and not later
than 7 days after the order has issued, unless the
party against whom the order is directed and others
harmed by the order consent to another date for the
hearing, except that a party against whom the order
has issued or any person harmed by the order may
move the court at any time to dissolve or modify the
order after giving notice to the applicant who obtained
the order; and
‘‘(vi) require the person obtaining the order to pro-
vide the security determined adequate by the court
for the payment of the damages that any person may
be entitled to recover as a result of a wrongful or
excessive seizure or wrongful or excessive attempted
seizure under this paragraph.
Courts. ‘‘(C) PROTECTION FROM PUBLICITY.—The court shall
take appropriate action to protect the person against whom
an order under this paragraph is directed from publicity,
by or at the behest of the person obtaining the order,
about such order and any seizure under such order.
‘‘(D) MATERIALS IN CUSTODY OF COURT.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any materials seized under this
paragraph shall be taken into the custody of the court.
The court shall secure the seized material from phys-
ical and electronic access during the seizure and while
in the custody of the court.
‘‘(ii) STORAGE MEDIUM.—If the seized material
includes a storage medium, or if the seized material
is stored on a storage medium, the court shall prohibit
the medium from being connected to a network or
the Internet without the consent of both parties, until
the hearing required under subparagraph (B)(v) and
described in subparagraph (F).
‘‘(iii) PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY.—The court
shall take appropriate measures to protect the con-
fidentiality of seized materials that are unrelated to
the trade secret information ordered seized pursuant
to this paragraph unless the person against whom
the order is entered consents to disclosure of the mate-
rial.
‘‘(iv) APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER.—The court
may appoint a special master to locate and isolate
all misappropriated trade secret information and to
facilitate the return of unrelated property and data
to the person from whom the property was seized.
The special master appointed by the court shall agree
to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement approved
by the court.
‘‘(E) SERVICE OF ORDER.—The court shall order that
service of a copy of the order under this paragraph, and
the submissions of the applicant to obtain the order, shall
be made by a Federal law enforcement officer who, upon
making service, shall carry out the seizure under the order.
The court may allow State or local law enforcement officials
to participate, but may not permit the applicant or any
agent of the applicant to participate in the seizure. At Determination.
the request of law enforcement officials, the court may
allow a technical expert who is unaffiliated with the
applicant and who is bound by a court-approved non-disclo-
sure agreement to participate in the seizure if the court
determines that the participation of the expert will aid
the efficient execution of and minimize the burden of the
seizure.
‘‘(F) SEIZURE HEARING.—
‘‘(i) DATE.—A court that issues a seizure order
shall hold a hearing on the date set by the court
under subparagraph (B)(v).
‘‘(ii) BURDEN OF PROOF.—At a hearing held under
this subparagraph, the party who obtained the order
under subparagraph (A) shall have the burden to prove
the facts supporting the findings of fact and conclusions
of law necessary to support the order. If the party
fails to meet that burden, the seizure order shall be
dissolved or modified appropriately.
‘‘(iii) DISSOLUTION OR MODIFICATION OF ORDER.—
A party against whom the order has been issued or
any person harmed by the order may move the court
at any time to dissolve or modify the order after giving
notice to the party who obtained the order.
‘‘(iv) DISCOVERY TIME LIMITS.—The court may
make such orders modifying the time limits for dis-
covery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as
may be necessary to prevent the frustration of the
purposes of a hearing under this subparagraph.
‘‘(G) ACTION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WRONGFUL SEI-
ZURE.—A person who suffers damage by reason of a wrong-
ful or excessive seizure under this paragraph has a cause
of action against the applicant for the order under which
such seizure was made, and shall be entitled to the same
relief as is provided under section 34(d)(11) of the Trade-
mark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1116(d)(11)). The security
posted with the court under subparagraph (B)(vi) shall
not limit the recovery of third parties for damages.
‘‘(H) MOTION FOR ENCRYPTION.—A party or a person
who claims to have an interest in the subject matter seized
may make a motion at any time, which may be heard
ex parte, to encrypt any material seized or to be seized
under this paragraph that is stored on a storage medium.
The motion shall include, when possible, the desired
encryption method.
‘‘(3) REMEDIES.—In a civil action brought under this sub-
section with respect to the misappropriation of a trade secret,
a court may—
‘‘(A) grant an injunction—
‘‘(i) to prevent any actual or threatened misappro-
priation described in paragraph (1) on such terms as
the court deems reasonable, provided the order does
not—
‘‘(I) prevent a person from entering into an

employment relationship, and that conditions
placed on such employment shall be based on evi-
dence of threatened misappropriation and not
merely on the information the person knows; or
‘‘(II) otherwise conflict with an applicable
State law prohibiting restraints on the practice
of a lawful profession, trade, or business;
‘‘(ii) if determined appropriate by the court,
requiring affirmative actions to be taken to protect
the trade secret; and
‘‘(iii) in exceptional circumstances that render an
injunction inequitable, that conditions future use of
the trade secret upon payment of a reasonable royalty
for no longer than the period of time for which such
use could have been prohibited;
‘‘(B) award—
‘‘(i)(I) damages for actual loss caused by the mis-
appropriation of the trade secret; and
‘‘(II) damages for any unjust enrichment caused
by the misappropriation of the trade secret that is
not addressed in computing damages for actual loss;
or
‘‘(ii) in lieu of damages measured by any other
methods, the damages caused by the misappropriation
measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable
royalty for the misappropriator’s unauthorized disclo-
sure or use of the trade secret;
‘‘(C) if the trade secret is willfully and maliciously
misappropriated, award exemplary damages in an amount
not more than 2 times the amount of the damages awarded
under subparagraph (B); and
‘‘(D) if a claim of the misappropriation is made in
bad faith, which may be established by circumstantial evi-
dence, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or
opposed in bad faith, or the trade secret was willfully
and maliciously misappropriated, award reasonable attor-
ney’s fees to the prevailing party.
‘‘(c) JURISDICTION.—The district courts of the United States
shall have original jurisdiction of civil actions brought under this
section.
‘‘(d) PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS.—A civil action under subsection
(b) may not be commenced later than 3 years after the date on
which the misappropriation with respect to which the action would
relate is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should
have been discovered. For purposes of this subsection, a continuing
misappropriation constitutes a single claim of misappropriation.’’.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 1839 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended—
(1) in paragraph (3)—
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘the public’’ and
inserting ‘‘another person who can obtain economic value
from the disclosure or use of the information’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(5) the term ‘misappropriation’ means—

‘‘(A) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person
who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret
was acquired by improper means; or
‘‘(B) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another
without express or implied consent by a person who—
‘‘(i) used improper means to acquire knowledge
of the trade secret;
‘‘(ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or
had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade
secret was—
‘‘(I) derived from or through a person who
had used improper means to acquire the trade
secret;
‘‘(II) acquired under circumstances giving rise
to a duty to maintain the secrecy of the trade
secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or
‘‘(III) derived from or through a person who
owed a duty to the person seeking relief to main-
tain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the
use of the trade secret; or
‘‘(iii) before a material change of the position of
the person, knew or had reason to know that—
‘‘(I) the trade secret was a trade secret; and
‘‘(II) knowledge of the trade secret had been
acquired by accident or mistake;
‘‘(6) the term ‘improper means’—
‘‘(A) includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach
or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy,
or espionage through electronic or other means; and
‘‘(B) does not include reverse engineering, independent
derivation, or any other lawful means of acquisition; and
‘‘(7) the term ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ means the Act enti-
tled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of
trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of
certain international conventions, and for other purposes,
approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (commonly
referred to as the ‘‘Trademark Act of 1946’’ or the ‘‘Lanham
Act’’)’.’’.
(c) EXCEPTIONS TO PROHIBITION.—Section 1833 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ‘‘or create a private right of action for’’ after
‘‘prohibit’’.
(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
(1) The section heading for section 1836 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 1836. Civil proceedings’’.
(2) The table of sections for chapter 90 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 18 USC 1831
1836 and inserting the following: prec.
‘‘1836. Civil proceedings.’’.

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section Applicability.
shall apply with respect to any misappropriation of a trade secret 18 USC 1833
(as defined in section 1839 of title 18, United States Code, as note.
amended by this section) for which any act occurs on or after

the date of the enactment of this Act.
18 USC 1833 (f) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in the amendments made
note. by this section shall be construed to modify the rule of construction
under section 1838 of title 18, United States Code, or to preempt
any other provision of law.
18 USC 1833 (g) APPLICABILITY TO OTHER LAWS.—This section and the
note. amendments made by this section shall not be construed to be
a law pertaining to intellectual property for purposes of any other
Act of Congress.
SEC. 3. TRADE SECRET THEFT ENFORCEMENT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended—
(1) in section 1832(b), by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting
‘‘the greater of $5,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen
trade secret to the organization, including expenses for research
and design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret
that the organization has thereby avoided’’; and
(2) in section 1835—
(A) by striking ‘‘In any prosecution’’ and inserting the
following:
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In any prosecution’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(b) RIGHTS OF TRADE SECRET OWNERS.—The court may not
authorize or direct the disclosure of any information the owner
asserts to be a trade secret unless the court allows the owner
the opportunity to file a submission under seal that describes the
interest of the owner in keeping the information confidential. No
submission under seal made under this subsection may be used
in a prosecution under this chapter for any purpose other than
those set forth in this section, or otherwise required by law. The
provision of information relating to a trade secret to the United
States or the court in connection with a prosecution under this
chapter shall not constitute a waiver of trade secret protection,
and the disclosure of information relating to a trade secret in
connection with a prosecution under this chapter shall not constitute
a waiver of trade secret protection unless the trade secret owner
expressly consents to such waiver.’’.
(b) RICO PREDICATE OFFENSES.—Section 1961(1) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘sections 1831 and
1832 (relating to economic espionage and theft of trade secrets),’’
before ‘‘section 1951’’.
18 USC 1832 SEC. 4. REPORT ON THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS OCCURRING ABROAD.
note.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Under Sec-
retary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
(2) FOREIGN INSTRUMENTALITY, ETC.—The terms ‘‘foreign
instrumentality’’, ‘‘foreign agent’’, and ‘‘trade secret’’ have the
meanings given those terms in section 1839 of title 18, United
States Code.
(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of
Columbia and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of
the United States.
(4) UNITED STATES COMPANY.—The term ‘‘United States

company’’ means an organization organized under the laws
of the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof.
(b) REPORTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment Consultation.
of this Act, and biannually thereafter, the Attorney General, in Public
consultation with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordi- information.
Web posting.
nator, the Director, and the heads of other appropriate agencies,
shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, and make publicly available
on the Web site of the Department of Justice and disseminate
to the public through such other means as the Attorney General
may identify, a report on the following:
(1) The scope and breadth of the theft of the trade secrets
of United States companies occurring outside of the United
States.
(2) The extent to which theft of trade secrets occurring
outside of the United States is sponsored by foreign govern-
ments, foreign instrumentalities, or foreign agents.
(3) The threat posed by theft of trade secrets occurring
outside of the United States.
(4) The ability and limitations of trade secret owners to
prevent the misappropriation of trade secrets outside of the
United States, to enforce any judgment against foreign entities
for theft of trade secrets, and to prevent imports based on
theft of trade secrets overseas.
(5) A breakdown of the trade secret protections afforded
United States companies by each country that is a trading
partner of the United States and enforcement efforts available
and undertaken in each such country, including a list identi-
fying specific countries where trade secret theft, laws, or
enforcement is a significant problem for United States compa-
nies.
(6) Instances of the Federal Government working with
foreign countries to investigate, arrest, and prosecute entities
and individuals involved in the theft of trade secrets outside
of the United States.
(7) Specific progress made under trade agreements and
treaties, including any new remedies enacted by foreign coun-
tries, to protect against theft of trade secrets of United States
companies outside of the United States.
(8) Recommendations of legislative and executive branch Recommenda-
actions that may be undertaken to— tions.
(A) reduce the threat of and economic impact caused
by the theft of the trade secrets of United States companies
occurring outside of the United States;
(B) educate United States companies regarding the
threats to their trade secrets when taken outside of the
United States;
(C) provide assistance to United States companies to
reduce the risk of loss of their trade secrets when taken
outside of the United States; and
(D) provide a mechanism for United States companies
to confidentially or anonymously report the theft of trade
secrets occurring outside of the United States.
SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) trade secret theft occurs in the United States and

around the world;
(2) trade secret theft, wherever it occurs, harms the compa-
nies that own the trade secrets and the employees of the
companies;
(3) chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code (commonly
known as the ‘‘Economic Espionage Act of 1996’’), applies
broadly to protect trade secrets from theft; and
(4) it is important when seizing information to balance
the need to prevent or remedy misappropriation with the need
to avoid interrupting the—
(A) business of third parties; and
(B) legitimate interests of the party accused of wrong-
doing.
28 USC 620 note. SEC. 6. BEST PRACTICES.
Deadline. (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Judicial Center, using existing
resources, shall develop recommended best practices for—
(1) the seizure of information and media storing the
information; and
(2) the securing of the information and media once seized.
(b) UPDATES.—The Federal Judicial Center shall update the
recommended best practices developed under subsection (a) from
time to time.
Records. (c) CONGRESSIONAL SUBMISSIONS.—The Federal Judicial Center
shall provide a copy of the recommendations developed under sub-
section (a), and any updates made under subsection (b), to the—
(1) Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(2) Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representa-
tives.
SEC. 7. IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE
OF A TRADE SECRET TO THE GOVERNMENT OR IN A COURT
FILING.
(a) AMENDMENT.—Section 1833 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘This chapter’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GEN-
ERAL.—This chapter’’;
(2) in subsection (a)(2), as designated by paragraph (1),
by striking ‘‘the reporting of a suspected violation of law to
any governmental entity of the United States, a State, or a
political subdivision of a State, if such entity has lawful
authority with respect to that violation’’ and inserting ‘‘the
disclosure of a trade secret in accordance with subsection (b)’’;
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(b) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE
OF A TRADE SECRET TO THE GOVERNMENT OR IN A COURT FILING.—
‘‘(1) IMMUNITY.—An individual shall not be held criminally
or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law
for the disclosure of a trade secret that—
‘‘(A) is made—
‘‘(i) in confidence to a Federal, State, or local
government official, either directly or indirectly, or to
an attorney; and
‘‘(ii) solely for the purpose of reporting or inves-
tigating a suspected violation of law; or
‘‘(B) is made in a complaint or other document filed

in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made
under seal.
‘‘(2) USE OF TRADE SECRET INFORMATION IN ANTI-RETALIA-
TION LAWSUIT.—An individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation
by an employer for reporting a suspected violation of law may
disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual and
use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, if
the individual—
‘‘(A) files any document containing the trade secret
under seal; and
‘‘(B) does not disclose the trade secret, except pursuant
to court order.
‘‘(3) NOTICE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—An employer shall provide notice Contracts.
of the immunity set forth in this subsection in any contract
or agreement with an employee that governs the use of
a trade secret or other confidential information.
‘‘(B) POLICY DOCUMENT.—An employer shall be consid-
ered to be in compliance with the notice requirement in
subparagraph (A) if the employer provides a cross-reference
to a policy document provided to the employee that sets
forth the employer’s reporting policy for a suspected viola-
tion of law.
‘‘(C) NON-COMPLIANCE.—If an employer does not
comply with the notice requirement in subparagraph (A),
the employer may not be awarded exemplary damages
or attorney fees under subparagraph (C) or (D) of section
1836(b)(3) in an action against an employee to whom notice
was not provided.
‘‘(D) APPLICABILITY.—This paragraph shall apply to Contracts.
contracts and agreements that are entered into or updated
after the date of enactment of this subsection.
‘‘(4) EMPLOYEE DEFINED.—For purposes of this subsection,
the term ‘employee’ includes any individual performing work
as a contractor or consultant for an employer.
‘‘(5) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Except as expressly provided
for under this subsection, nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to authorize, or limit liability for, an act that is
otherwise prohibited by law, such as the unlawful access of
material by unauthorized means.’’.
(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1838
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘This
chapter’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in section 1833(b), this

chapter’’.
Approved May 11, 2016.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1890:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114–529 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 114–220 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
Apr. 4, considered and passed Senate.
Apr. 27, considered and passed House.
DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2016):
May 11, Presidential remarks.
Æ
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SYNTEL STERLING BEST SHORES MAURITIUS

LIMITED, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER
- against -
15-CV-211 (LGS) (RLE)
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants. .
ｾＹＱ＠
RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited, and Syntel, Inc., (collectively,
"Syntel") initiated this action against The TriZetto Group, Inc. ("TriZetto") and Cognizant
Technology Solutions Corp. ("Cognizant," and, collectively, "Defendants"), alleging breach of
contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and misappropriation of confidential
information. (Doc. Nos. 1, 39.) Defendants asserted counterclaims against Syntel, alleging
breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misappropriation of
confidential information, unfair competition, and tortious interference with prospective business
relations. (Doc. Nos. 21, 50.) Before the Court is Defendants' motion for leave to amend their
counterclaims against Syntel to (1) add new claims and allegations of copyright infringement; (2)
expand allegations of misappropriation under New York law; (3) add new claims and allegations
of trade secret theft under the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA"); (4) expand allegations of
breach of contract; and (5) make additional amendments to conform the counterclaims to the
products of discovery and new information developed since their initial filing. (Doc. No. 191.)
For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to amend their counterclaims is GRANTED.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Relevant Factual Allegations in the Operative Counterclaims
TriZetto develops and licenses software products in the healthcare industry. Relevant to
this action is Facets, TriZetto's "core software product geared specifically to health plan
administration." (Id. at if 42.) TriZetto also provides consulting services, including a unit that
customizes and integrates its own software into clients' existing systems. (Id. at if 43.) TriZetto
explains that this process is "complex" and can take many months. (Id.) Accordingly, TriZetto
hires contractors to perform some of this work, including Syntel. (Id. at if 44.)
Syntel and TriZetto were parties to a Master Services Agreement ("MSA") in which
Syntel promised to supply TriZetto with appropriately qualified technical personnel to assist with
"software development, consulting, and other customer projects." (Id. at if 46.) The MSA
included a clause prohibiting each party from using the other's "Confidential Information" for its
own benefit, including "TriZetto Data," defined as "all data and information to which [the parties
to the contract] have access in connection with the provision of the Services under ... the MSA."
(Id at if 47.) The MSA also contemplated that, in the event that TriZetto was acquired by one of
Syntel's competitors, including Cognizant, Syntel could elect to terminate the MSA, as long as
Syntel continued to provide "Termination Assistance Services" for up to two years. (Id. at if 48.)
On September 15, 2014, Cognizant announced that it would acquire TriZetto. (Id. at if
52.) Syntel issued a notice of termination on November 20, 2014, which took effect on February
18, 2015. (Id.) Defendants allege that after issuing the notice of termination, Syntel
"opportunistically undertook to sabotage TriZetto and, therefore, Syntel's competitor
Cognizant." (Id. at if 54.) TriZetto alleges that Syntel engaged in "an organized effort ... to
misappropriate ... confidential files in order to effectively compete" against Defendants. (Id. at ii
2
63.) In particular, Defendants allege that Syntel accessed and downloaded documents from
TriZetto's Customer Exchange, a bank of confidential and proprietary information, intended to
be accessible through TriZetto's intranet and used by its contractors and clients to meet the needs
of TriZetto's customers. (Id. at ii 64-66.)
The Counterclaim alleges that approximately 1,500 documents were downloaded by
Syntel staffers between its notice of termination in September 2014 and the termination effective
date the following February. (Id. at ii 67.) Defendants allege that there were systematic
downloads on or around staffers' last days on TriZetto projects, including some staffers
forwarding documents to their personal email addresses. (Id. at iii! 70-75.) They allege that
Syntel then used the wrongly downloaded data to pitch consulting jobs in direct competition with
Defendants, including for the client United Health Group ("UHG"). (Id. at iii! 77-81.)
B. Relevant Evidence Disclosed Through Discovery
Defendants allege that documents produced by Syntel throughout the course of discovery
demonstrate that Syntel's course of conduct, including downloading, using, and copying key
pieces ofTriZetto's software, was more widespread than they realized when they filed their most
recent counterclaim in March 2015. (Doc. No. 192 (Defendants' Memorandum of Law in
Support of their Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaims) ("Defs.' Mem.") at 5.) Specifically,
they cite to emails that they say demonstrated rampant sharing among Syntel workers of
documents that had been downloaded from the Customer Exchange as late as April 2015, and to
an October 2014 UHG pitch by Syntel promising access to its Facets "Platform Management
Tools." (Id. at 5-6.) They further allege that the Platform Management Tools, descriptions of
which were allegedly posted on Syntel's website as early as December 2014, 1 appear to
1 There appears to be no dispute that the Platform Management Tool descriptions from Syntel's website_ were n?t
produced to Defendants during discovery, but rather have been "publically marketed on [Syntel's] pubhc website"
3
improperly compete with TriZetto's proprietary tools. (Id at 6-9.) Defendants contend that
Syntel would never have been able to develop this "sophisticated software and vast libraries of
code and documents by October 2014" without improperly using or copying TriZetto' s
confidential information, data, and intellectual property ("IP"). (Id at 9 .)
C. Relevant Procedural History
Syntel initiated this action on January 12, 2015. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants filed their
Answer and Counterclaims on February 23, 2015. (Doc. No. 21.) On March 4, 2015, Syntel filed
an Amended Complaint, joining the parent company, Syntel Inc., as a party. (Doc. No. 39.)
Defendants filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaims on March 23,
2015. (Doc. No. 50.) Judge Loma G. Schofield entered a scheduling order on March 24, 2015,
setting that date as the deadline to amend the pleadings without leave of the Court. (Doc. No.
51.) The Case was referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for general pretrial on June 1,
2015, and reassigned to the undersigned on June 8, 2015. (Doc. No. 71.)
The Parties have been engaged in discovery since March 2015. Syntel made its initial
document productions in June 2015, and the undersigned held a conference on July 2, 2015, to
address disputes regarding the scope of the initial production and future productions. (Doc. No.
105 (Hr'g Tr.).) The Court set the end of August 2015 for completion of non-custodial ESI and
the end of October 2015 for the end of fact discovery. (Id at 5:8-6:18.) A month later, at a
hearing on August 5, 2015, the Court ruled on a dispute regarding the Parties' proposed ESI
search terms, and ordered the Parties to further meet and confer regarding the timeframe for the
completion of discovery. (Doc. No. 112 (August 5, 2015 Hr'g Tr.).) The Parties thereupon
agreed to the substantial completion of document production by October 31, 2015. (Doc. No.
since "at least December 2014." (Pl.'s Mem. at 6, 14.)
4
117.) On November 4, 2015, Syntel sought an order modifying the search terms. The application
was denied by the undersigned on December 4, 2015. (Doc. No. 136 (December 4, 2015 Hr'g
Tr.).) Syntel appealed, and the ruling was affirmed by Judge Schofield on January 12, 2016.
(Doc. No. 143.) The Parties agreed that Syntel would complete its document production by
February 11, 2016. (Doc. No. 142.) Defendants allege that in February, Syntel produced over
86,000 pages of documents, doubling its productions to date. (Defs.' Mem. at 5, citing
Declaration of Gianni Cuatri ("Cuatri Deel.") at iii! 6-8.)
On April 21, 2016, the undersigned held a discovery conference at which both Parties
raised issues with the other's production to date. (Doc. No. 146 (April 21, 2016 Hr' g Tr.).) The
Court ordered the parties to confer further and to file a joint letter detailing their disputes by May
12, 2016. The issues raised in the May 12 letter were addressed before the undersigned on June
22, 2016 (Doc. No. 157 (June 22, 2016 Hr'g Tr.) and June 29, 2016 (Doc. No. 166 (June 29,
2016 Hr'g Tr.). Inter alia, the Court ordered Syntel to produce additional documents related to
its allegedly improper downloading and use of TriZetto confidential materials and its Platform
Management Tools. (See id.) The Court's discovery orders were affirmed by Judge Schofield on
July 8, 2016 (Doc. No. 163) and July 29, 2016. (Doc. No. 187.)
III. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
Generally, leave of court to amend pleadings should be freely given "when justice so
requires." FED. R. C1v. P. 15(a); Rachman Bag Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 230 (2d Cir.
1995). "Reasons for a proper denial ofleave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, futility of
the amendment, and perhaps most important, the resulting prejudice to the opposing party." State
Teachers Retirement Boardv. Fluor Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d Cir. 1981); Dluhos v. Floating
5
and Abandoned Vessel, Known as New York, 162 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1998); see Cevasco v.
National R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 04 Civ. 5760 (PAC) (GWG), 2007 WL 4440922, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2007) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Furthermore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) requires parties to show "good
cause" before the court will consent to the modification of scheduling order. FED. R. C1v. P.
16(b)( 4). In the Second Circuit, "the amendment of a pleading as a matter of course pursuant to
Rule 15(a) is subject to the district court's discretion to limit the time for amendment of the
pleadings in a scheduling order issued under Rule 16(b)." Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen, Inc.,
496 F.3d 229, 244 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)). "With respect to the Rule
16(b) standard, 'good cause' depends on the diligence of the moving party." Id. at 243.
B. Good Cause
The scheduling order in this case set March 23, 2015, as the deadline to amend the
pleadings without leave of the Court. (Doc. No. 51.) Defendants argue that they have shown
good cause for the Court to exercise its discretion and to allow amendment of their counterclaims
because they have diligently sought leave to amend during discovery, "which is a timely
response to newly adduced evidence and changes in controlling law." (Defs.' Mem. at 12.)
The Court agrees that Defendants were timely in their response. The Defend Trade
Secrets Act of 2016 ("DTSA") was passed during the pendency of this case, amending existing
law, creating a federal cause of action for trade secrets misappropriation. See Defend Trade
Secrets Act of2016, ch. 90, 130 Stat. 376 (2016) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. 1831 et
seq.); McGuire v. Warren, 207 F. App'x 34, 37 (2d Cir. 2006) (permitting plaintiff to amend
complaint to meet a change in applicable law since the complaint was filed). The remaining
allegations in the proposed amendment are based on evidence that Syntel produced within a large
6
production of documents in February 2016, and the motion was filed while the Parties were still
engaged in the active litigation of the sufficiency of that production. "Courts routinely grant
leave to amend when a plaintiff seeks to refine the complaint to reflect evidence obtained during
discovery." In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 04 CIV. 9866 (LTS) (HBP), 2012 WL 983548, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2012).
Syntel argues that the newly adduced evidence does not excuse Defendants' delay in
seeking leave to amend, noting that more than a year has passed since the deadline to amend the
pleadings without court approval. It alleges that descriptions of Syntel's Platform Management
Tools have been available on Syntel's website since 2014, and that Defendants knew or should
have known of the information before it filed its original counterclaims. (Pl. Mem. at 14, citing
Reach Music Pub., Inc. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., No. 09 CIV. 5580 (LTS), 2010 WL
3023981, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2010); G.C. W v. United States, No. 15-CV-0294 (DF), 2015
WL 8481677, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2015).) Syntel further argues that the UHG proposal
identifying those tools was produced to Defendants in December 2015 and, in any event
Defendants have failed to establish any link between the data that Defendants claim was
misappropriated and the Platform Management Tools. (Id)
First, the Court disagrees that the availability of the descriptions of the Platform
Management Tools on Syntel's website is analogous to the cases Syntel cites. Reach Music Pub.,
Inc., 2010 WL 3023981, at *2 (leave to amend denied where moving party "personally
executed" the contracts that were the subject of the amendment and "provided no explanation[]
why Plaintiffs were not aware of those contracts prior to their production in discovery"); G.C. W,
2015 WL 8481677, at *3 (moving party delayed obtaining a medical examination to assess his
own damages until after the expiration of the deadline to amend the pleadings). Additionally, the
7
Court does not find the time between Syntel's production of the UHG proposal in December
2015 and Defendants' motion unreasonable, as they explain that "the extent to which Syntel
misappropriated TriZetto' s confidential information to create those tools was not apparent" until
they received Syntel's internal email communications in February 2016. (Defs.' Reply Mem. at
5.)
The Court is also satisfied that Defendants have adequately pled, at this stage, a link
between the emails that show downloading and sharing of TriZetto's documents among Syntel
employees and the Platform Management Tools. Defendants allege that Syntel's complex Facets-
related software, such as its '"repository of 3 ,000+ FACE TS test cases and 500+ automation
scripts' and an inventory of custom code interfaces" could not have been developed "by October
2014 without using or copying TriZetto's confidential information, data, and intellectual
property." (Defs.' Mem. at 8-9.) The Court finds this inference reasonable, and accordingly finds
that the amendments are sufficiently related to the newly adduced evidence to warrant granting
leave to amend.
C. Prejudice
Syntel "bear[s] the burden of 'of demonstrating that substantial prejudice would result
were the proposed amendment to be granted."' Cat3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., No. 14 CIV.
5511 (AT) (JCF), 2015 WL 5559569, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2015) (quoting Oneida Indian
Nation ofNew York State v. Cty. of Oneida, N. Y, 199 F.R.D. 61, 77 (N.D.N.Y. 2000)). Syntel
alleges that they will be "severely prejudiced" by the proposed amendment because it would
"radically transform the scope and nature of the case, would require voluminous additional
discovery, and would delay resolution indefinitely," "essentially [hitting] the reset button on all
discovery." (Pl. Mem. at 15-16.) Syntel claims that it would be required to expend "considerable
8
resources" on discovery regarding the new claims and potential defenses including: how
Defendants' maintained the confidentiality of new documents and information they contend were
misappropriated; Cognizant's access to the confidential material; whether the confidential
material was already in the public domain and therefore not confidential; Defendant's
development and ownership of the copyrights they assert; and Syntel's "defenses to those
copyrights." (Id. at 16.)
While some additional discovery will likely be required, the Court does not find that it
will cause Syntel substantial prejudice because Defendants' existing counterclaims are closely
related to the proposed amendments and were "foreshadowed in earlier pleadings, argument, and
subsumed within prior discovery." (Stonewall Corp. v. Conestoga Title Ins. Co. 2010 WL
647531, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2010).) The Parties have already engaged in substantial
document production, which both forms the basis for Defendants' amendments and Syntel's
defenses. For example, Syntel has already pursued discovery relating to TriZetto's protection of
confidential materials. (See June 21, 2016 Hr'g Tr. 24:16-21.) Additionally, the Court recently
ruled that discovery regarding Defendants' allegations of improper downloading, beyond the
1,500 downloads alleged in the Complaint, was relevant to the Defendants' existing
counterclaims. (June 29, 2016 Hr'g Tr. 3:9-11, affirmed at Doc. No. 187.)
Moreover, discovery has not yet closed and there are pending discovery disputes.
Accordingly, because the Court does not find that the proposed amendments would substantially
increase the scope of discovery, and because Syntel will have an opportunity to complete what
additional discovery is required, Syntel has not met its burden of showing substantial prejudice.
D. Futility
The adequacy of an amendment "is to be judged by the same standards as those
9
governing the adequacy of a filed pleading." Ricciuti v. NYC Transit Auth., 941F.2d119, 123
(2d Cir. 1991 ). Thus, "[a]n amendment to a pleading is futile if the proposed claim could not
withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. l 2(b )( 6)." Lucente v. IBM, 310 F.3d
243, 258 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678-679 (2009). The Court finds that Defendants have adequately pled each of the
proposed additional claims, and accordingly, amendment is not futile.
1. Copyright Infringement
"To establish infringement of copyright, 'two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of
a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original."' Arista
Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Feist Publications, Inc. v.
Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)). "The word 'copying' is shorthand for
the infringing of any of the copyright owner's five exclusive rights described in [17 U.S.C.] §
106," including reproduction, distribution of copies, and creation of derivative works based on
the copyrighted work. Id (internal quotations omitted) (citations omitted).
Defendants' proposed amended counterclaims adequately allege that TriZetto owns valid
copyrights in various software, presentations, manuals and user guides, and other materials
(collectively, "Trizetto's Intellectual Property"), and that these copyrights have been registered
with the Copyright Office, satisfying the first element of a copyright infringement claim. (Defs.'
Mem., Ex. A ("Proposed Countercl.") i-fi-f 50-51, 160-61.) Warren v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 952
F. Supp. 2d 610, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (At the motion to pleading stage, "Plaintiffs need only
'allege ... that plaintiff owns the copyrights in those works' and 'that the copyrights have been
10
registered in accordance with [17 U.S.C. § 41 l(a)]") (quoting Kelly v. L.L. Cool J., 145 F.R.D.
32. 36 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)). Syntel argues that Defendants have failed to allege valid copyright
ownership because the proposed amendment indicates "some or all of its applications have been
'refused."' This argument lacks merit. (Pl. Mem. at 18.) The statute entitles an applicant whose
registration has been refused to institute a civil action for infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 441(a).
Second, Defendants have adequately alleged that Syntel copied its original materials.
(See, e.g., Proposed Countercl. if 3 ("Syntel personnel downloaded, used, copied, converted and
stole Trizetto's Intellectual Propery ... ");if 53 ("During the MSA, Syntel abused its access [to
Trizetto's Intellectual Property], exceeded the scope of its authority, and improperly copied,
downloaded, distributed, and used [it]"); if 79 ("Upon information and belief, Syntel created [its
Platform Management Tools] by copying TriZetto's Intellectual Property, and has used, and is
using, such copies in connection with its own business."); if 80 ("Internal Syntel emails confirm
that Syntel has downloaded, used, copied, misappropriated and distributed TriZetto's Intellectual
Property.").) Defendants also allege facts that support an inference of copying, namely that
Syntel had access to its proprietary materials and that there is a substantial similarity between
Syntel's Platform Management Tools and their own Intellectual Property, including their Code
Impact Tool and Data Dictionary Program. (Id at if 78-83.)
Contrary to Syntel's argument that "Defendants' only evidence of copying is a chart
showing that Syntel developed each of the tools," (Pl. Mem. at 18.), the Court finds that
Defendants have pled sufficient specific facts to render their claim that Syntel copied Trizetto's
Intellectual Property facially plausible. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
2. Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of2016 ("DTSA" or "Act") expands the provisions of 18
11
U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. Defend Trade Secrets Act of2016, ch. 90, 130 Stat. 376 (2016) (codified
as amended at 18 U.S.C. 1831 et seq.). The Act provides a federal cause of action to the owner of
a trade secret that is misappropriated and is related to a product or service used in, or intended
for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b). A trade secret is defined within
DTSA as, inter alia, technical information, including "programs," "processes," and "codes," if
(A) "the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B)
"the information derives independent economic value ... from not being generally known ... [or]
readily ascertainable ... [to] another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure
or use of the information[.]" 18 U.S.C. 1839(3)(A)-(B). "Misappropriation" is defined within
DTSA as an unconsented disclosure or use of a trade secret by one who (i) used improper means
to acquire the secret, or, (ii) at the time of disclosure, knew or had reason to know that the trade
secret was acquired through improper means, under circumstances giving rise to a duty to
maintain the secrecy of the trade secret, or derived from or through a person who owed such a
duty. 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5). "Improper means" includes breach of duty to maintain secrecy, but
"does not include reverse engineering, independent derivation, or any other lawful means of
acquisition." 18 U.S.C. § 1839(6).
Defendants have adequately pied the elements for relief under DTSA. The Intellectual
Property at issue in the proposed amendments falls within the scope of trade secrets protected by
the Act. (See Proposed Countercl. ｾ＠ 76, 132-33.) Defendants have alleged that they have taken
reasonable measures to keep the information secret by making those who use it subject to
confidentiality provisions and limitations, and only making it accessible through strictly
controlled servers such as the Customer Exchange. (Id. ｡ｴｾ＠ 58-60, 77, 90, 123, 134.)
Additionally, Defendants have alleged that the information is valuable and crucial to the business
12
functions and competitive position of TriZetto. (Id at ilil 49, 122, 136.) Finally, Defendants have
alleged that Syntel has, without their consent, downloaded TriZetto's Intellectual Property from
their Customer Exchange and other repositories and used it for Syntel's own use and financial
gain, unrelated to its service of TriZetto's clients, in breach of the MSA's prohibition on each
party using the other's confidential information for its own benefit. (Id. at ilil 79-80, 96.)
Syntel opposes Defendants' addition of a claim under DTSA because the amendment
alleges pre-enactment conduct, noting that DTSA applies only to acts of misappropriation that
occur "on or after the date of the enactment of this Act," May 11, 2016. (Pub. Law 114-153.)
The plain language of the Act defines misappropriation to include "disclosure or use of a trade
secret without the consent of another." 18 U.S.C. 1839(5) (emphasis added). Accordingly, as
Defendants allege that Syntel continues to use its Intellectual Property to directly compete with
Trizetto, the wrongful act continues to occur after the date of the enactment of DTSA. (Proposed
Countercl. il 13 7.)
3. Misappropriation and Breach of Contract Under New York State Law
Defendants seek to supplement their existing counterclaims of misappropriation and
breach of contract under New York State Law. Syntel does not allege that either of these
amendments are futile. The Court finds that the facts described above supplement and bolster
counterclaims that were already adequately pled, and, accordingly, amendment of those claims is
not futile.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' motion for leave to amend its counterclaims
is GRANTED. Defendants shall file the Amended Answer and Counterclaims in its redacted
form by September 30, 2016, and shall file the full, unredacted version under seal and placed in
13
the clerk's office.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Parties shall meet and confer regarding the
outstanding discovery in this case, and by September 30, 2016, file a joint status report
explaining what fact and expert discovery remains and a proposed timeline for its completion. If
the Parties disagree on the timeline, the report shall set forth their respective positions.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of September 2016

New York, New York
The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis

United States Magistrate Judge
14
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
UNUM GROUP, )
) CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, )
) NO. 4:16-CV-40154-TSH
v. )
)
TIMOTHY P. LOFTUS, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR

COSTS AND FEES (Docket No. 10) and PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF (Docket No. 4)
December 6, 2016
HILLMAN, D.J.
Plaintiff Unum Group brings this action against a former employee, Timothy Loftus, after
Loftus removed numerous company documents from Unum’s facility without authorization, and
refused to return them. Unum asserts claims for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of
the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1) (Count I) and the
Massachusetts Trade Secrets Act (Count II), and for conversion (Count III). Unum filed the
present motion for injunctive relief seeking to i) enjoin Loftus from copying the documents, ii)
compel Loftus and his counsel to return all of the documents and any of Unum’s other trade secret
or confidential information in his possession, and iii) enjoin Loftus from receiving a mirrored copy
1
of the hard drive of his company laptop1 until Unum has removed or redacted files containing trade
secrets or confidential information. Loftus opposes the preliminary injunction on the grounds that
his actions are exempted under § 1836(b) of the DTSA, which provides immunity under any
federal and state trade secret laws to individuals who disclose trade secrets in confidence to an
attorney, “solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law.”2
Loftus also moves to dismiss the complaint for the same reason, and argues that dismissal of the
DTSA claim, which provides the basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, extinguishes the court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law conversion
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. For the reasons detailed below, Loftus’s motion to dismiss the
complaint (Docket No. 10) is denied, and Unum’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket
No. 4) is granted.
Background
Plaintiff Unum Group is a provider of financial protection benefits, including disability
benefits, life insurance, and accident coverage. Loftus began his employment with Unum in 1985,
and, in 2004, was promoted to Director of Individual Disability Insurance (“IDI”) Benefits. Within
that role, Loftus had access to confidential information regarding Unum’s employees and
customers, including customer health information, and various trade secrets related to Unum’s
business. Unum maintains numerous practices to protect the security of its trade secrets and client
and employee confidential information, including confidentiality agreements and policies,
1
On September 29, 2016, Loftus removed a company laptop from the Unum facility, but
returned the laptop to Unum on October 24, 2016, after both parties executed an agreement
stating its contents would be preserved.
2
The suspected violation of law Loftus is reporting or investigating remains unclear. Loftus has
indicated that he is contemplating a whistleblower action, as well as claims for retaliation and
wrongful termination.
2
employee training, and data encryption. Loftus executed numerous confidentiality agreements
throughout his tenure at Unum.
On September 21, 2016, Loftus was interviewed by Unum’s in-house counsel as part of an
internal investigation into claims practices. The following Sunday afternoon, September 25th,
Loftus entered Unum’s Worcester facility, and was captured on surveillance video leaving the
building with two boxes and a briefcase. On Tuesday, September 27th, after leaving work in the
afternoon, Loftus was seen on video returning to Unum’s offices around 7:45pm, and exiting the
building an hour later with a shopping bag full of documents.
An Unum officer investigating Loftus’s removal of documents telephoned Loftus on
Thursday morning, September 29th, but Loftus refused to respond to questions regarding the
printing and removal of documents from Unum’s office. Shortly thereafter, Loftus was seen
leaving Unum’s office with his company laptop and a shopping bag which appeared to be full.
Less than an hour after his departure, Unum “Employee Relations” representatives called Loftus
and asked him to return the laptop, and he agreed to do so that day. At 3pm on the same day,
counsel for Loftus notified Unum that the laptop would be returned the same day, however, the
laptop was not returned.
Unum made numerous requests to Loftus’s attorney throughout October for the return of
the laptop and documents. While the company laptop was returned to Unum on October 24, 2016,
the documents Loftus removed from the Unum office have not been returned. In addition, counsel
for Loftus has made copies of the documents in counsel’s possession. Unum maintains that it is
highly likely that the documents removed by Loftus contain confidential customer and employee
information, and or trade secrets, including protected health information, and that Unum may now
3
be required by law to notify all individuals whose private health information was contained in the
documents of an unauthorized disclosure.3
Discussion
A. Loftus’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
Loftus asks this court to dismiss Unum’s federal and state law claims for trade secret
misappropriation on the grounds that he turned over the documents he removed from Unum to
his attorney to report and investigate a violation of law, and is therefore immune from any
liability for trade secret misappropriation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b). Section 1833(b)
shields individuals from liability under any federal or state trade secret law for disclosure of a
trade secret made “in confidence . . . to an attorney . . . solely for the purpose of reporting or
investigating a suspected violation of law.”
“As a general rule, a properly raised affirmative defense can be adjudicated on a motion
to dismiss so long as (i) the facts establishing the defense are definitively ascertainable from the
complaint and the other allowable sources of information, and (ii) those facts suffice to establish
the affirmative defense with certitude.” Rodi v. Southern New England School of Law, 389 F.3d
5, 12 (1st Cir. 2004).
Loftus does not deny that the documents he removed contain trade secrets. While Loftus
contends that he is entitled to immunity under the DTSA because he handed Unum’s documents
over to his attorney to pursue legal action against Unum for alleged unlawful activities, the
record lacks facts to support or reject his affirmative defense at this stage of litigation. There has
been no discovery to determine the significance of the documents taken or their contents, and
3
Both the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 93H mandate notification to individuals whose personal information has been
disclosed to an unauthorized person or used for an unauthorized purpose.
4
Loftus has not filed any potential lawsuit that could be supported by information in those
documents. Further, it is not ascertainable from the complaint whether Loftus turned over all of
Unum’s documents to his attorney, which documents he took and what information they
contained, or whether he used, is using, or plans to use, those documents for any purpose other
than investigating a potential violation of law. Taking all facts in the complaint as true, and
making all reasonable inferences in favor of Unum, the court finds the complaint states a
plausible claim for trade secret misappropriation and declines to dismiss Counts I and II.
Loftus seeks dismissal of the claim for conversion on the grounds that disposal of the
federal trade secret misappropriation claim that forms the basis for this court’s jurisdiction
renders dismissal of the state law claim appropriate. However, as the trade secret
misappropriation claims have survived dismissal, this argument fails. Accordingly, the motion
to dismiss the complaint is denied.
B. Unum’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
The court weighs four factors in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction:
“(1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm if the
injunction is denied; (3) the balance of relevant impositions, i.e., the hardship to the nonmovant
if enjoined as contrasted with the hardship to the movant if no injunction issues; and (4) the
effect (if any) of the court's ruling on the public interest.” Charlesbank Equity Fund II, Ltd.
P'ship v. Blinds To Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 158 (1st Cir. 2004). “The sine qua non of this four-
part inquiry is likelihood of success on the merits.” New Comm Wireless Services, Inc. v.
SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002).
To prevail on a claim for conversion under Massachusetts law, a “plaintiff must show
that (1) the defendant intentionally and wrongfully exercised control or dominion over the
5
personal property; (2) the plaintiff had an ownership or possessory interest in the property at the
time of the alleged conversion; (3) the plaintiff was damaged by the defendant's conduct; and (4)
if the defendant legitimately acquired possession of the property under a good-faith claim of
right, the plaintiff's demand for its return was refused.” U.S. v. Peabody Const. Co., Inc., 392
F.Supp.2d 36 (D. Mass 2005) (citing Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Six Consignments of Frozen
Scallops, 4 F.3d 90, 95 (1st Cir. 1993).
Unum alleges that Loftus was seen on surveillance videos removing multiple file boxes,
shopping bags and briefcases full of documents from their facility after hours without
authorization, and has refused to return them. Further, the defendant conceded at the hearing on
the preliminary injunction on November 30, 2016 that Unum has stated a colorable claim for
conversion, and argues only that the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims if the federal trade secret misappropriate claim that forms the basis of this court’s
jurisdiction is dismissed.4 However, the court has declined to dismiss the federal claim, as
discussed above, and finds Unum is likely to succeed on the merits of its conversion claim. The
court will not address the likelihood of success on the merits of the claims for trade secret
misappropriation that have already survived dismissal under 12(b)(6), because the court finds
Unum’s conversion claim alone is sufficient to warrant the injunction Unum seeks.
Regarding the remaining factors to be considered in deciding a motion for preliminary
injunction, all weigh in favor of Unum. There is no question regarding the potential for
irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; the documents contain an unknown number of trade
4
The defendant is mistaken. “In a federal-question case, the termination of the foundational
federal claim does not divest the district court of power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction but,
rather, sets the stage for an exercise of the court's informed discretion.” Roche v. John Hancock
Mut. Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249, 256-57 (1st Cir. 1996).
6
secrets and potentially unquantified amounts of private health information that could cause
irreparable damage to Unum’s business if released. In addition, there is minimal hardship to
Loftus in requiring the documents be returned, as he can request them during discovery if he
proceeds with a lawsuit against Unum.5 The hardship to the plaintiff is readily apparent. Unum
has a substantial business risk in that it is unable to assure any customers or employees that its
information is secure because it has a possible uncontained breach of confidential information.
Unum’s interest in recovering its documents also has a substantial overlap with the public
interest. Confidential health information should not be held hostage to an unfiled lawsuit, and
Unum’s customers who are not yet on notice that their health information could have been
compromised will be well served by Unum’s efforts to contain this information breach.
This court recognizes the substantial public interest in facilitating whistleblower actions,
however, no whistleblower suit has been filed. Unum does not know what Loftus took or what
he is going to do with it. Loftus’s self-help discovery and threat of potential action in the future
are not mitigated by the existence of an actual lawsuit.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss and for costs and fees
(Docket No. 10) is denied, and Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Docket No. 4) is
granted.
1. The Defendant, his attorney, or anyone acting on his behalf is ordered to deliver any
documents taken from Unum, whether in paper or electronic form, or any computer
5
Obviously, the discoverability of these documents remains an open question to be decided on
the facts of whatever collateral action is filed.
7
peripherals taken from Unum, to the court on or before the close of business on
December 7, 2016.
2. The Defendant and his counsel are ordered to destroy all copies of any documents taken
from the plaintiff and ordered not to make additional copies. The Defendant is further
ordered not to deliver any of the above referenced documents to any third party without
the express permission of this court.
3. The Plaintiff is ordered to make a mirror image of the computer hard drive and flash
drive. Plaintiff is further ordered to make copies of any documents on the laptop or flash
drive and deliver them to the court on/before close of business December 7, 2016. The
contents shall be included in the index referenced in paragraph 4.
4. The parties are ordered to meet and to confer on or before January 13, 2017, and prepare
an index of the documents that have been delivered to the court. This index shall, for the
time being, be filed under seal.
5. The Defendant, and counsel for the Defendant, shall file an affidavit signed under the
pains and penalties of perjury, setting forth whether the original or any copies of the
documents referenced above have been given to any third party, and if so, the
circumstances under which said documents were given.
Once the index of documents referenced in paragraph 4 has been prepared and filed with the court,
the plaintiff may move to have the above referenced documents returned to their custody.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Timothy S. Hillman

TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
DISTRICT JUDGE
8
1
9 SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
OOO BRUNSWICK RAIL
11 MANAGEMENT, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00017-EJD
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ EX

13 v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR SEIZURE

AND PRESERVATION ORDERS,
14 RICHARD SULTANOV, et al., EXPEDITED DISCOVERY,
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
15 Defendants. AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
16 Re: Dkt. No. 3
17 Plaintiffs OOO Brunswick Rail Management and Brunswick Rail Group Limited (together,
18 “Brunswick”) allege that defendants Richard Sultanov and Paul Ostling misappropriated
19 Brunswick’s confidential information. Complaint ¶¶ 31–48. Before the Court is Brunswick’s ex
20 parte application for:
21 (1) a seizure order under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836;
22 (2) a seizure and preservation order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 64 and 65, the Court’s inherent
23 authority, and the All Writs Act, 27 U.S.C. § 1651(a);
24 (3) expedited discovery;
25 (4) a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); and
26 (5) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
27 1
1 Dkt. No. 3. Brunswick’s motion will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2 I. BACKGROUND
3 Defendants Sultanov and Ostling are former employees of Brunswick. Brief in Support of
4 Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application (“Brief”) at 2–3, Dkt. No. 4. Brunswick alleges that both Sultanov
5 and Ostling misappropriated trade secrets in November and December 2016. Id. at 5.
6 After noticing “unusually secretive” behavior from Sultanov, Brunswick investigated his
7 work email account and discovered that he had sent several confidential documents to his personal
8 email account without authorization; he then deleted the sent messages and emptied his trash
9 folder. Id. at 5–7, 9. The investigation further revealed that Sultanov had been communicating by
10 phone with Ostling (who had since resigned from Brunswick) and a representative of one of
11 Brunswick’s creditors, whom Sultanov was explicitly prohibited from contacting. Id. at 7. Ostling,
12 too, received unauthorized confidential materials at his personal email account (via his former
13 personal assistant, who remained at Brunswick), which he then forwarded to the creditor’s
14 representative and to Sultanov. Id. at 8. Sultanov also refuses to return a company-issued mobile
15 phone and laptop. Id. at 1.
16 Brunswick believes that Sultanov and Ostling “have already disclosed and plan to continue
17 to disclose the trade secrets to creditors in order to disadvantage Brunswick in its ongoing
18 negotiations” related to Brunswick’s debt restructuring. Id. at 1.
19 II. DISCUSSION
20 A. Preservation and Seizure
21 Parties have a duty to preserve evidence once a complaint is filed. Echostar Satellite LLC
22 v. Freetech, Inc., No. C-07-06124 JW, 2009 WL 8399038, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2009). To
23 obtain an order imposing stricter preservation requirements, a party must make “some showing of
24 a significant concern that potentially relevant evidence will be destroyed . . . .” Bright Sols. for
25 Dyslexia, Inc. v. Doe 1, No. 15-CV-01618-JSC, 2015 WL 5159125, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2,
26 2015). To determine whether a preservation order is necessary, courts consider (1) threats to
27 2
1 preservation of the evidence, (2) irreparable harm likely to result to the party seeking preservation,
2 and (3) the capability of the custodian to maintain the evidence sought to be preserved. Echostar,
3 2009 WL 8399308, at *2.
4 Brunswick has satisfied these three requirements. First, there is a risk that Sultanov and
5 Ostling will delete relevant material from their email accounts, which are hosted by Google (for
6 the address richard.sultanov@gmail.com) and Rackspace (for the address
7 paul.ostling@pauljostling.com). There is also a risk that Google and Rackspace might delete
8 material themselves (for instance, by automatically erasing emails that Sultanov or Ostling moved
9 to their trash folders). See, e.g., Bright Sols., 2015 WL 5159125, at *3 (noting that under Google’s
10 “regular business practices, user data is routinely destroyed within months after a user deletes that
11 information”). Second, deletion of this material would cause irreparable harm to Brunswick.
12 Third, it is within the reasonable capabilities of Google and Rackspace to preserve material
13 associated with Sultanov and Ostling’s accounts. Brunswick’s need for preservation is all the more
14 acute because Rackspace and Google, as nonparties, have no obligation to preserve this
15 information absent a court order. Id. at *3 (granting an order directing nonparties eBay, PayPal,
16 and Google “to preserve documents, data, and records”).
17 Brunswick also seeks an order directing seizure of information on Sultanov and Ostling’s
18 digital accounts by requiring Google and Rackspace to deliver physical copies to the Court with
19 assistance from the U.S. Marshals. Brief at 16–17. The Court finds that physical copies of the data
20 are unnecessary because Google and Rackspace will be required to preserve the data under their
21 own custody.
22 Finally, Brunswick seeks an order under the DTSA to seize the company-issued laptop and
23 mobile phone in Sultanov’s possession. The DTSA provides that a “court may, upon ex parte
24 application but only in extraordinary circumstances, issue an order providing for the seizure of
25 property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret that is the
26 subject of the action” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(i). A court may issue a seizure order only if,
27 3
1 among other requirements, an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 or another form of equitable relief
2 would be inadequate. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(ii). Here, the Court finds that seizure under the
3 DTSA is unnecessary because the Court will order that Sultanov must deliver these devices to the
4 Court at the time of the hearing scheduled below, and in the meantime, the devices may not be
5 accessed or modified.
6 C. Expedited Discovery
7 Courts may allow expedited discovery for good cause. Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron
8 Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (concluding that the “good cause” standard
9 applies); see also MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-26, No. 11-CV-03679 EJD, 2011 WL 3473808, at *2
10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011) (“A court may authorize early discovery before the Rule 26(f)
11 conference for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the interest of justice. . . . Courts
12 within the Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown ‘good cause’ for the
13 early discovery.”) “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in
14 consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.”
15 Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276.
16 Brunswick fails to show good cause because it does not adequately explain the need for
17 expedited discovery. Brunswick may request expedited discovery in a separate motion.
18 D. TRO and Preliminary Injunction
19 The standards for issuing a TRO and preliminary injunction are the same. New Motor
20 Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977). A preliminary
21 injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
22 plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22
23 (2008). The plaintiff must show (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that it is likely to
24 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in
25 its favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d
26 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009).
27 4
1 A preliminary injunction is also appropriate if “serious questions going to the merits were
2 raised and the balance of the hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Alliance for the Wild
3 Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010).
4 “These formulations are not different tests but represent two points on a sliding scale in
5 which the degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success on the merits
6 decreases.” Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of the Anchorage Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d
7 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989). But “[u]nder either formulation, the moving party must demonstrate a
8 significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective of the magnitude of the injury.” Id.
9 Brunswick has satisfied the requirements for a TRO. First, Brunswick has shown that it
10 will likely succeed on the merits of its trade secrets claims. Brunswick’s evidence shows that
11 Sultanov and Ostling improperly disseminated confidential information—e.g., by emailing
12 documents to their personal accounts and then sending that information to third parties. That
13 information likely constituted protectable trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets
14 Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1. Second, Brunswick has shown that it will likely suffer irreparable
15 harm if the Court does not grant injunctive relief. Dissemination of the confidential information to
16 Brunswick’s creditors, competitors, and adverse parties in arbitration would cause Brunswick
17 irreparable harm. Finally, the balance of equities weighs in Brunswick’s favor, and a TRO would
18 serve the public interest.
19 In addition, an ex parte TRO application must satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1), under which
20 a TRO may issue only if “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice
21 and the reasons why it should not be required.” The declaration of Gabriel M. Ramsey in support
22 of Brunswick’s application states that “notice would render the requested relief ineffective” and
23 that district courts in the Ninth Circuit have granted relief in similar circumstances. Dkt. No. 6 at
24 1–2.
25
26
27 5
1 E. Service by Mail, Email, and Facsimile
2 The Court declines to adopt Brunswick’s proposed order for alternative means of service
3 without a showing that such means are necessary.
4 III. ORDER
5 Brunswick’s application is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court
6 orders that:
7 1. Within 72 hours of receiving this Order, Rackspace Hosting, Inc. and/or Rackspace
8 US, Inc. shall preserve all data associated with the account paul.ostling@pauljostling.com. Within
9 seven days of preservation, Rackspace Hosting, Inc. and/or Rackspace US, Inc. shall notify the
10 Court in writing that preservation has occurred.
11 2. Within 72 hours of receiving this Order, Google, Inc. shall preserve all data
12 associated with the account richard.sultanov@gmail.com. Within seven days of preservation,

13 Google, Inc. shall notify the Court in writing that preservation has occurred.
14 3. Plaintiffs shall facilitate service of copies of this Order by delivery to the registered
15 California agents for service of process for Google, Inc., Rackspace Hosting, Inc., and Rackspace
16 US, Inc., with email copies to their in-house legal departments, subpoena compliance departments,
17 or court order compliance departments.
18 4. Defendants Richard Sultanov and Paul Ostling must appear before this Court on
19 January 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 at 280 1st St., San Jose, CA 95113 to show cause
20 why a preliminary injunction should not be made and entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 granting the
21 following relief, and that pending the hearing and ruling on Brunswick’s request for a preliminary
22 injunction, the Court issues this Order:
23 a. restraining and enjoining Defendant Richard Sultanov, and all those acting in
24 concert or participation with him, from accessing or modifying electronic
25 devices issued to him by Brunswick, including mobile phones and laptops,
26 unless otherwise directed by this Court;
27 6
1 b. directing Defendant Richard Sultanov to bring the electronic devices issued to
2 him by Brunswick, including mobile phones and laptops, to the January 20
3 hearing and deliver those devices to the Court’s custody;
4 c. restraining and enjoining Defendants, and all those acting in concert or
5 participation with them from destroying, or disposing any evidence or other
6 materials, in any form, relating to this action and the issues raised herein,
7 including, without limitation, all devices, electronic media, cloud storage,
8 telephones and all copies of any and all documents, media and/or other
9 materials, containing, identifying, describing, reflecting or referencing
10 Plaintiffs’ confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information, and any and all
11 documents, data and information which was obtained by Defendants from, or
12 by virtue of their employment with Plaintiffs, including all current or archived

13 media, emails, chats, texts, documents, electronic logs, metadata, storage,
14 directories, telephone logs, telephones, computer, laptops, software or
15 hardware;
16 d. restraining and enjoining Defendants, and all those acting in concert or
17 participation with them, from violating their employment agreements,
18 confidentiality agreements, IT policies, or fiduciary duties, duties of loyalty and
19 other obligations to Plaintiffs, including without limitation the portions of their
20 agreements prohibiting the use, disclosure or dissemination of Plaintiffs’
21 confidential, proprietary or trade secret information, and their fiduciary duties and
22 duties of loyalty not to use, disclose or disseminate such information; restraining
23 and enjoining Defendants, and all those acting in concert or participation with
24 them, from communicating confidential, proprietary or trade secret information to
25 contractual counterparties of Plaintiffs, including any creditors or related parties, or
26 otherwise interfering with or injuring relations, goodwill or negotiations with any
27 7
1 contractual counterparties, including creditors or related parties, or communicating
2 regarding Plaintiffs’ business or dealings with such parties.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated: January 6, 2017 at 11:02 a.m.
6
7
______________________________________
8 EDWARD J. DAVILA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 8
EX10.1 2 fb9302014xex101.htm EXHIBIT
Exhibit 10.1
October 6, 2014
Dear Jan:
On behalf of WhatsApp Inc. (the “Company” or “WhatsApp”), which will be a whollyowned subsidiary of Facebook,
Inc. (“Facebook”) following the closing of the Acquisition (as defined below), I am pleased to offer you fulltime employment in
the position of Chief Executive Officer of WhatsApp reporting to the Chief Executive Officer of Facebook, subject to the closing
of the acquisition (the “Acquisition”) contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization dated as of
February 19, 2014, by and among Facebook, WhatsApp Inc. and the other parties thereto (the “Merger Agreement”). As Chief
Executive Officer of WhatsApp, you will continue to lead WhatsApp and make the strategic and operational decisions customary
of a Chief Executive Officer, while consulting with the Chief Executive Officer of Facebook. You shall be appointed to serve as a
director of Facebook on Facebook’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) as of the closing of the Acquisition, and you hereby accept
such appointment and agree to serve. You will be working out of the Company’s Mountain View office. Where the context
requires, references to the “Company” or “WhatsApp” set forth in this letter refer to Rhodium Acquisition Sub II, Inc., which will
be renamed “WhatsApp Inc.” following the closing of the Acquisition.
1. Compensation.
a. Base Pay. In this position, your base pay will be $1.00.
b. Bonus. In this position, you will not be eligible for a bonus under Facebook’s bonus plan.
2. Employee Benefits.
a. Paid Time Off. Subject to Facebook’s PTO policy, you will be eligible to accrue up to twentyone (21) days of PTO
per calendar year, prorated for the remainder of this calendar year.
b. Group Plans. Facebook will provide you with the opportunity to participate in the standard benefits plans currently
available to other similarly situated employees, including medical, dental, and vision, subject to any eligibility requirements
imposed by such plans.
3. Restricted Stock Units.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, and as a material inducement to your acceptance of our offer of
employment, within two business days following the closing of the Acquisition you will be awarded 24,853,468 restricted stock
units ("RSUs") subject to the terms of a nonshareholder approved equity incentive award issued in reliance on the “inducement
exception” provided under Rule 5635(c)(4) of the NASDAQ Listing Rules in the form attached to this Offer
Letter as Attachment C (the “Inducement Award”). Each RSU that is awarded to you will entitle you to receive one share of
Facebook Class A common stock (the “Shares”) following vesting. Facebook will cause to be filed an immediately effective
Registration Statement on Form S8 to register the Shares underlying the Inducement Award within two business days following
the closing of the Acquisition.
Unlike traditional stock options, you do not need to pay any exercise price for the shares of Facebook's stock subject to the
RSUs; they are simply delivered to you as a component of your compensation if and when they vest. The RSUs are subject to a
fouryear quarterly vesting schedule with a oneyear “cliff.” If you have been continuously employed by the Company through the
oneyear anniversary of your RSU start date as specified in your award agreement (your “Cliff Date”), you will be entitled to
receive 20% of the Shares on your Cliff Date. After the Cliff Date, on each subsequent Quarterly Vesting Date, you will vest in (a)
with respect to the first eight (8) Quarterly Vesting Dates, 1/20th of the Shares, and (b) with respect to the last four (4) Quarterly
Vesting Dates, 1/10th of the Shares, provided that you have been continuously employed by the Company through such date.
Facebook has four Quarterly Vesting Dates each year: February 15th, May 15th, August 15th and November 15th. Your
RSU start date will be the first Quarterly Vesting Date following the closing date of the Acquisition. For example, if the
Acquisition closes on October 30th, your RSU start date will be November 15th. Before any Shares are delivered to you following
vesting, Facebook must satisfy its tax withholding obligations in a manner satisfactory to Facebook, which may include
withholding a number of Shares with a fair market value equal to the amount Facebook is then required to withhold for taxes. The
RSUs shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Schedule 5.12 of the Merger Agreement, the Inducement Award and
Facebook’s policies in effect from time to time. Capitalized terms set forth above will have the meanings set forth in the
Inducement Award.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that your employment with WhatsApp or Facebook is terminated by
WhatsApp or Facebook without “Cause” (as defined in Schedule 5.12 of the Merger Agreement) or by you for “Good Reason” (as
defined in Schedule 5.12 of the Merger Agreement) prior to the RSU start date or the vesting of some or all of the RSUs, all
unvested RSUs that have been awarded to you will become vested as of the date of your termination of employment (it being
understood that, for the avoidance of doubt, this sentence only applies to your grant of RSUs in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement).
4. Preemployment Conditions.
a. Confidentiality Agreement. By signing and agreeing to this Offer Letter, you also agree to be bound by the terms
and conditions of the enclosed Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement (the “Confidentiality Agreement”).
We require that you sign the Confidentiality Agreement and return it to us with this Offer Letter prior to or on your Start Date.
b. Mutual Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver. By signing and agreeing to this Offer Letter, you agree
to be bound by the terms and conditions of the enclosed Mutual Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver (the “Arbitration
Agreement”). You attest and agree that you have reviewed the Arbitration Agreement and that you have had the opportunity to
review the Arbitration Agreement with an attorney of your own choosing. Your agreement to abide by the terms of the
Arbitration Agreement is a condition of your employment with WhatsApp. We require that you sign the Arbitration
Agreement and return it to us with this Offer Letter prior to or on your Start Date.
c. Right to Work. For purposes of federal immigration law, you will be required to provide to the Company
documentary evidence of your identity and eligibility for employment in the United States. Such documentation must be provided
to us within three (3) business days of your Start Date, or our employment relationship with you may be terminated.
This offer is also contingent upon receipt of any export license or other approval that may be required under United
States export control laws and regulations. The Company is not obligated to apply for any export license or other approval that
may be required, nor can we guarantee that the United States Government will issue an export license or other approval, in the
event that we do file an application.
5. No Conflicting Obligations. You understand and agree that by accepting this offer of employment, you represent to
the Company that your performance will not breach any other agreement to which you are a party and that you have not, and will
not during the term of your employment with the Company, enter into any oral or written agreement in conflict with any of the
provisions of this letter or the Company’s policies. You are not to bring with you to the Company, or use or disclose to any person
associated with the Company, any confidential or proprietary information belonging to any former employer (except WhatsApp) or
other person or entity with respect to which you owe an obligation of confidentiality under any agreement or otherwise. The
Company does not need and will not use such information and we will assist you in any way possible to preserve and protect the
confidentiality of proprietary information belonging to third parties. Also, we expect you to abide by any obligations to refrain
from soliciting any person employed by or otherwise associated with any former employer and suggest that you refrain from
having any contact with such persons until such time as any nonsolicitation obligation expires.
6. Outside Activities. While you render services to the Company, you agree that you will not engage in any other
employment, consulting or other business activity without the written consent of the Company, except for civic and charitable
business activities. In addition, while you render services to the Company, you will not assist any person or entity in competing
with the Company, in preparing to compete with the Company or in hiring any employees or consultants of the Company.
7. General Obligations. As an employee, you will be expected to adhere to the Company’s standards of
professionalism, loyalty, integrity, honesty, reliability and respect for all. You will also be expected to comply with the Company’s
and Facebook’s policies and procedures. The Company is an equal opportunity employer.
8. AtWill Employment. Employment with the Company is for no specific period of time. Your employment with the
Company will be on an “at will” basis, meaning that either you or the Company may terminate your employment at any time, with
or without advance notice, and for any reason or no particular reason or cause. Any contrary representations which may have been
made to you are superseded by this offer. This is the full and complete agreement between you and the Company on this term.
Subject to Section 3, although your compensation and benefits, as well as the Company’s personnel policies and procedures, may
change from time to time, the “at will” nature of your employment may only be changed in an express written agreement signed by
an authorized officer of the Company.
9. Withholdings. All forms of compensation paid to you as an employee of the Company shall be less all applicable
withholdings.
To indicate your acceptance of the Company’s offer, please sign and date this letter in the space provided below and return
it to me, along with a signed and dated original copy of the Confidentiality Agreement and Arbitration Agreement. Employment in
this new position begins immediately following the closing of the Acquisition (the “Start Date”). This letter, and the attachments
thereto, supersede and replace any prior understandings or agreements, whether oral, written or implied, between you, the
Company or Facebook regarding the matters described in this letter and the attachments thereto, including the Offer Letter between
you and Facebook dated as of February 19, 2014. For the avoidance of doubt, you acknowledge and agree that this letter shall not
constitute a rescission that triggers rights to cash payments under Schedule 5.12 to the Merger Agreement. This letter will be
governed by the laws of the state in which you are employed, without regard to its conflict of laws provisions.
Very truly yours,
WhatsApp Inc.
/s/ Mark Zuckerberg
By: Mark Zuckerberg, on behalf of the Board of Directors
ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
Jan Koum
/s/ Jan Koum
Signature
October 6, 2014
Date
Attachment A: Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement
Attachment B: Mutual Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver
Attachment C: Form of Inducement Award

Facebook Potential Employee Nondisclosure Agreement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facebook Potential Employee Nondisclosure Agreement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facebook Potential Employee Nondisclosure Agreement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACEBOOK POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED BY APPLICANT:

Signed: Applicant’s Address for Notices:

Social Security Number:

Name: Mark Zuckerberg /s/ Sheryl Sandberg

Date: Feb. 20, 2008 Date: 2/20/08

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ADAMS ARMS, LLC,

UNIFIED WEAPON SYSTEMS, INC.

This cause is before the Court pursuant to Adams Arms,

LLC’s Motion to Dismiss or Strike Unified Weapon Systems,

Inc.’s First Amended Counterclaim (Doc. # 119), which was

filed on October 28, 2016. On November 18, 2016, Unified

Weapon Systems, Inc. (“UWSI”) filed a Response in Opposition

to the Motion. (Doc. # 128). Also before the Court is Adams’

Motion to Dismiss Aguieus, LLC’s Counterclaim (Doc. # 123),

which was filed on November 2, 2016. Aguieus filed a Response

to the Motion on November 28, 2016. (Doc. # 131).

As explained below, the Court denies Adams’ Motion to

Dismiss UWSI’s Counterclaims. The Court grants in part Adams’

Motion to Dismiss Aguieus’ Counterclaims to the extent that

Aguieus’ Counterclaim for breach of the Letter of Intent is

dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend by

February 21, 2017.

Adams is a Tampa, Florida, weapons manufacturer

specializing in “small arms, including high-powered military

rifles.” (Doc. # 106 at ¶ 1). UWSI is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business in Florida. (Id. at ¶

11). UWSI is alleged to be a subsidiary of Aguieus. (Doc. #

106 at ¶ 11). Aguieus is a Delaware limited liability

corporation. (Id. at ¶ 12). Michael Bingham claims to be the

managing member of Aguieus and the Vice President and Chief

Operating Officer of UWSI. (Id. at ¶ 13).1 Christian

Quintanilla Aurich, an individual who resides in Peru, is the

President and Chief Executive Officer of UWSI. (Doc. # 106 at

¶ 14). General James W. Parker, a resident of Hillsborough

County, is a retired Major General from the United States Army

and serves as a Director and advisor for UWSI. (Id. at ¶ 15).

B. The Letter of Intent and Nondisclosure Agreements

In early 2014, Aguieus approached Adams with a proposal

for the two companies to work together on a bid to supply

high-powered military rifles designed and built by Adams to

the Peruvian military. (Id. at ¶ 18). According to Bingham,

the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Peru (the “Peruvian

MOD”) contacted UWSI concerning the opportunity to secure a

multi-year contract for the supply of rifles. (Id. ¶ 19).

“The Peruvian MOD was purportedly funding the purchase through

the Peruvian Factory of Weapons and Ammunition from the Army

S.A.C. (‘FAME’).” (Id.). The rifles would be constructed

based on the Peruvian MOD’s specifications “with input by UWSI

and its business partners.” (Id. ¶ 20). Adams alleges that

“Aguieus and UWSI, through Mr. Bingham and Mr. Aurich,

solicited [Adams] to be a business partner in the project.”

(Id.). The project would require Adams to provide UWSI with

products, such as demonstration rifles, to disclose trade

secrets and confidential information, and allow a tour of

Adams’ manufacturing facility. (Id. at ¶ 21).

On February 24, 2014, as an “inducement” for Adams to

join the project, Aurich and Bingham, on behalf of Aguieus,