DTSA Litigation Begins

The first couple of DTSA lawsuits have been filed.

M.C. DEAN, INC. v. City of Miami Beach, Docket 16-cv-21731-CMA (S.D. Fla filed May 16, 2016) and Bonamar, Corp. v. Turkin and Supreme Crab, Docket 16-CV-21746 (S.D. Fla. filed May 16, 2016).

In M.C.Dean, the plaintiff is attempting to stop the Miami Beach from disclosing his payroll information to the local electric workers union. [Complaint: MC Dean v. City of Miami Beach]

In Bonamar, the crab-meat dealer is suing a major competitor after its VP jumped ship and started targeted undercutting of Bonamar’s prices. [Complaint: CrabCase]

 

11 thoughts on “DTSA Litigation Begins

  1. With relation to your post, I would like to inform you about my event organized by International Excellence Forum which is termed by “World Litigation Forum” 2017 at the Law Society of England and Wales regarding the latest legal trends, current issues/challenges and also provide fresh insight on the latest legal developments. Contact us regarding more information.

    1. Not that I am (necessarily) disagreeing with you, but under what rationale are you making such a broad-based judgment? (and would you extend that to a smaller group that might exhibit such “groupthink”…?)

      1. Anon if they do for trade secrets what they did for patents….that’s too bad for legitimate trade secrets once the inevitable excesses have been worked out of the system…If East Texas doesn’t beat them to it, some enterprising district somewhere will stack the deck and create a nice little industry….

        1. Mr Snyder,

          Not only have you not provided the rationale that I was asking for, you have managed to throw out there another anti-lawyer comment.

          Maybe try something else.

  2. I get the Miami suit being proper under the statute – it’s a prospective attempt to prevent the release of data that the plaintiff considers to be proprietary – but what about the second suit, where the VP already moved to the competitor, presumably before the statute was enacted? Does the statute have retrospective effect? Or is it sufficient that the downstream effect of the improper taking of the secret is ongoing?

    1. It will have retroactive effects in some sense. Any act by the VP after he left will leave him open to liability and retroactively view the trade secrets while he worked.

  3. Some real high tech stuff here! Definitely the kind of “secrets” that would have been protected by patents before they were “weakened.”

    LOL

  4. So far no cases of the wrongful acquisition, cyber espionage type that motivated the legislation.

Comments are closed.