Mallet and Company Inc v. Ada Lacayo
Not yet assigned reporter volume and page (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A preliminary injunction based on trade secret misappropriation must specifically identify the alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity to separate them from general knowledge and to allow for meaningful appellate review. An injunction's terms must be narrowly tailored to remedy specific unlawful conduct and cannot be overly broad.
Facts:
- Mallet and Company Inc. ('Mallet') has developed, manufactured, and sold baking release agents for over eighty years, considering its formulas, processes, and customer information to be proprietary.
- Ada Lacayo worked for Mallet for many years, ultimately as Director of Technical Services, giving her extensive access to Mallet's formulas, product development, and customer data. She signed a non-disclosure and non-competition agreement.
- William Bowers worked for Mallet for approximately forty years, becoming Director of National Accounts with access to key customer and sales strategy information. He had a non-disclosure agreement.
- Russell T. Bundy Associates, Inc. ('Bundy'), an established baking industry supplier, created a new subsidiary, Synova LLC ('Synova'), to enter the baking release agent market.
- While still employed by Mallet, Lacayo secretly accepted a position as Synova's Lab Director. Before resigning, she copied 1,748 files onto a USB drive and emailed Mallet formulas to her personal account, then lied about her reasons for leaving.
- While still employed by Mallet, Bowers began sharing Mallet's internal customer and pricing information with Bundy. After resigning, he forwarded additional customer information to his wife's email account.
- Synova hired both Lacayo and Bowers. Shortly after, Synova rapidly developed and began marketing a line of release agents as direct replacements for Mallet's products, targeting Mallet's key customers.
Procedural Posture:
- Mallet and Company Inc. sued Ada Lacayo, William Bowers, Bundy Baking Solutions, and Synova LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- Mallet filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from competing with it, alleging trade secret misappropriation and other claims.
- After expedited discovery and a hearing, the District Court granted Mallet's motion for a preliminary injunction, imposing a broad production ban on the defendants and requiring Mallet to post a $500,000 bond.
- The defendants appealed the District Court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a preliminary injunction that fails to identify the alleged trade secrets with specificity, is overly broad in scope, and is secured by an inadequately justified bond, violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65?
Opinions:
Majority - Jordan, Circuit Judge
Yes. A preliminary injunction that lacks the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) must be vacated. The District Court's order failed to identify Mallet's trade secrets with sufficient particularity, instead listing broad, generic categories of business information like 'Mallet's formulas' and 'pricing and volume data.' Such a description does not distinguish protectable secrets from publicly available information (such as data in Mallet's own patents) or an employee's general industry know-how. Without a specific identification of the trade secrets, an appellate court cannot meaningfully review the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits, and the enjoined party has no clear notice of what conduct is forbidden. Furthermore, the injunction was impermissibly broad, imposing a total 'production ban' that ejected a competitor from the marketplace altogether, which is a drastic remedy not supported by the record. Finally, the court abused its discretion in setting the $500,000 bond by failing to conduct a case-specific analysis of the potential damages the defendants could suffer if wrongfully enjoined.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high procedural bar for obtaining a preliminary injunction in trade secret cases, emphasizing the mandate for specificity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). It serves as a strong caution to plaintiffs that they cannot rely on vague allegations of 'know-how' or broad categories of information to shut down a competitor. The ruling forces district courts to conduct a rigorous, specific analysis and create a detailed record identifying the precise secrets at issue before granting the extraordinary remedy of an injunction. This precedent makes it more difficult for established companies to use litigation to stifle new competition by requiring clear proof of what is actually a secret, rather than just pointing to a former employee's general knowledge and skill.
