AutoNation, Inc. v. Hatfield
AutoNation, Inc. v. Hatfield
2006 WL 60547 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2006)
January 4, 2006
Moe, Leroy H., Judge
Summary
The Court granted AutoNation's Motion for Temporary Injunction, ordering Hatfield to return all AutoNation trade secrets and prohibiting him from disclosing any information. The Court also ordered Hatfield to make Julie Anderson's personal computer available to AutoNation so its contents can be examined by a forensic computer expert to determine whether any AutoNation material exists on the computer. This ruling recognizes the importance of ESI in trade secret cases and ensures that AutoNation can protect its trade secrets from being misused or disseminated.
AUTONATION, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
Garrick HATFIELD, Defendant
v.
Garrick HATFIELD, Defendant
Appellate Case No. 05-02037
Florida Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County
January 04, 2006
Counsel
Jon K. Stage, and Eric K. Gabrielle, of Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, et al., (Fort Lauderdale, Florida), for Plaintiff AutoNation, Inc.Alex Sabo, and Seth V. Alhadeff, of Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. (Miramar, Florida), and Andrew S. Golub, Dow, Golub, Berg & Beverly, LLP (Houston, Texas), for Defendant Garrick Hatfield.
Andrew S. Golub, for Defendant Garrick Hatfield.
Moe, Leroy H., Judge
ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BASED UPON THEFT OF TRADE SECRETS
*1 THIS CAUSE came before the Court for an evidentiary hearing on December 12, 2005 regarding Plaintiff AutoNation's Motion for Injunctive Relief Based Upon Defendant's Theft of Trade Secrets and AutoNation's subsequent Motion for Clarification of December 12, 2005 ruling. The Court, having reviewed the motions and after hearing evidence and argument on the request for injunctive relief submitted by the parties, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
1. Defendant Garrick Hatfield (“Hatfield”) acquired and used trade secrets within the meaning of the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Florida Statutes §§ 688.001 et. seq., which trade secrets belong to and are proprietary to AutoNation. More specifically, the evidence demonstrated that Hatfield knowingly, freely, willingly and deliberately downloaded confidential proprietary information from AutoNation in an attempt to gain competitive advantage to his probable new employer.
2. The Court concludes that as a direct and proximate result of Hatfield's misappropriation of AutoNation's trade secrets, AutoNation has been and will continue to be damaged irreparably unless injunctive relief is entered.
3. To obtain temporary injunctive relief, a party must prove (1) it will suffer irreparable harm unless the status quo is maintained; (2) it has no adequate remedy at law; (3) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) a temporary injunction will serve the public interest. Yachting Promotions, Inc. v. Broward Yachts, Inc., 792 So.2d 660, 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), rev. denied, 819 So.2d 133 (Fla.2002).[1] The Court has evaluated each of these elements in light of the evidence submitted by the parties at the evidentiary hearing and has concluded that AutoNation has made the showing necessary to obtain injunctive relief and has demonstrated a clear right to such relief.
4. The evidence demonstrates that unless injunctive relief is entered against Hatfield, AutoNation will suffer immediate and irreparable harm. The misappropriation of AutoNation trade secret material by Hatfield presents a substantial threat of irreparable harm, which cannot not be remedied with money damages. In particular, the Court concludes that Hatfield's prospective employment with, and value to, A-Rod is inextricably connected to or entirely a result of the AutoNation trade secrets he misappropriated. In other words, Hatfield's knowledge of AutoNation's trade secrets would be so entwined with any activity taken with or on behalf of other employers that any injunction directed solely at prevention of disclosure of this knowledge would be ineffective to protect AutoNation's trade secrets. See, Fountain v. Hudson Cush-N-Foam Corp., 122 So.2d 232, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); Fla.Jur.2d (“Monopolies and Restraints of Trade”) § 62, p. 81. The Court concludes that such injunctive relief is necessary to prevent continued actual and threatened misappropriation and to eliminate the commercial advantage Hatfield has derived from his misappropriation. Fla.Stat. § 688.003(1). In particular, the Court finds that due to the time-sensitive nature of the information, injunctive relief is appropriate for the specific time period during which the information has its greatest economic value, in light of burdens imposed by the injunctive relief being ordered, and, where appropriate, the injunctive relief ordered in this case is accordingly tailored to those periods.
*2 5. The Court finds AutoNation has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying action and a clear right to the relief it seeks. In pertinent part, AutoNation's claims against Hatfield arise under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The Court finds, based on the evidence before it, that it is substantially likely that AutoNation will prevail on its claim that Hatfield misappropriated confidential and proprietary information meeting the statutory definition of “trade secrets,” and, in particular, that there is evidence supporting the direct conclusion that Hatfield has misappropriated AutoNation's trade secrets.
6. A consideration of the relative harms between AutoNation and Hatfield weighs in favor of the issuance of an injunction. Hatfield is prepared to accepted a position with A-Rod, a competing dealership. He was privy to valuable AutoNation confidential and proprietary business information and documents, and made a deliberate and successful effort to misappropriate trade secret information, all of which would-absent this injunction-be used to the detriment of AutoNation. The evidence revealed AutoNation's trade secrets were developed over an extended period and at substantial expense to AutoNation, and the potential use and dissemination of this information to AutoNation's competitors will be deleterious to AutoNation in a way money damages would be insufficient to remedy. In addition, the Court concludes the relative harm to Hatfield appears slight. Hatfield has evidently voluntarily absented himself from working during the pendency of this lawsuit, and has not contended that such presents him any specific hardship.
7. This injunction will further Florida's public policy favors protection of legitimate “trade secrets” under applicable law and will protect AutoNation's investment in information it is entitled to protect and which is protected by Florida law.
8. The Court concludes that a bond in the amount of $5,000.00 is appropriate here, and Hatfield has not objected
For the reasons stated above, it is:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Plaintiff AutoNation Inc.'s Motion for Temporary Injunction be and the same is hereby GRANTED as follows:
A. Within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Hatfield shall return to AutoNation, without retaining any copies, extracts, excerpts or summaries thereof, or other reproductions (whether in hard copy or electronic form) in whole or in part thereof: all files, letters, memoranda, reports, records, computer disks or other computer storage medium, data, models, or any photographic or other tangible materials containing any information concerning AutoNation, Inc., or its subsidiaries or affiliates, or their business or operations, including without limitation, any trade secrets or know how, of business information; any document or other information reflecting or containing any technology, technique, process, or methodology; sales, promotional or marketing plans, and programs; techniques, practices or strategies, including any expansion plans (including existing and entry into new geographic and/or product markets); operational or management guidelines; corporate or commercial policies; cost, pricing, or other financial data or projections; and any information reflecting the identity and background of any customer, prospect, or supplier, to the extent any of the foregoing was obtained by Hatfield during his tenure with AutoNation.
*3 B. Beginning on the date AutoNation posts the bond required by this Order, and unless or until further order by the Court, Hatfield shall not disclose to any person or entity any information concerning AutoNation, Inc., or its subsidiaries or affiliates, or their business or operations, including without limitation, any trade secrets or know how, of business information; any document or other information reflecting or containing any technology, technique, process, or methodology; sales, promotional or marketing plans, and programs; techniques, practices or strategies, including any expansion plans (including existing and entry into new geographic and/or product markets); operational or management guidelines; corporate or commercial policies; cost, pricing, or other financial data or projections; and any information reflecting the identity and background of any customer, prospect, or supplier.
C. Beginning on the date AutoNation posts the bond required by this Order and ending February 1, 2006 (or unless or until further order by the Court), Hatfield shall not directly or indirectly, alone or in any other capacity, including without limitation as a partner, joint venturer, officer, director, member, employee, consultant, agent, independent contractor, stockholder, landlord or lessor of, or lender to, any company or business (or any affiliate thereof), engage in selling, leasing, or servicing of any new or used vehicles, or in the wholesale or retail supply of parts with respect thereto.
D. Within thirty (30) days Hatfield unless and until further ordered by the Court, shall make Julie Anderson's personal computer available to AutoNation so its contents can be examined by a forensic computer expert to determine whether the emails Hatfield sent to Ms. Anderson's email address have been forwarded or otherwise altered or used, and to determine whether any other AutoNation material exists on the computer. The forensic expert is authorized to copy any AutoNation material on the computer, including the January 26, 2005 emails, and to then delete all AutoNation material from the computer. Hatfield and Anderson are authorized to have an independent forensic expert available and in attendance at the inspection.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Footnotes
The moving party must have a clear legal right to the relief it seeks. Yachting Promotions, 792 So.2d at 663.