Category Archives: TradeSecret

Broadly Preserving the Status Quo

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). “Crafting a preliminary injunction is an exercise of discretion and judgment, often dependent as much on the equities of a […]

Read More

Duty of Loyalty After Interim Contract But Before Final Contract

Earlier, in LS3 Inc. v. Cherokee Nation Strategic Programs, L.L.C., No. 20-cv-03555-PAB, NYW (D. Colo. Sept. 29. 2021), the district court had held that Colorado had a strong public policy of not enforcing noncompete provisions, such that non-compete provisions in its LS3’s employment contracts were void and unenforceable. LS3 had claimed its former employees had […]

Read More

Sanctioned for Manipulation of Documents at Deposition

If you are the subject of a court injunction, then you need to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with that injunction. Otherwise, you may be at risk of being found in civil contempt. In the Seventh Circuit, a district court must make a finding of “bad faith, designed to obstruct the judicial process, […]

Read More

CUTSA Preemption in Colorado Redux

A Colorado state district court has revisited how to analyze whether a common law claim is preempted by the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) in CORE Consultants, Inc. v. Ferran, No. 2021CV31719, 2022 WL 20407191 (Colo. Dist. Ct. May 19, 2022). Two Analytical Approaches: “Elements” and “Facts” “Some determine whether the common law claim […]

Read More

CUTSA Preemption in Colorado

The lawyers at Thomas P. Howard LLC successfully moved to dismiss Colorado civil theft and conversion claims as preempted by the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) in CORE Consultants, Inc. v. Ferran, No. 2021CV31719, 2022 WL 1637926 (Colo. Dist. Ct. May 5, 2022). The Colorado civil theft statute (see C.R.S.§ 18-4-405) provides: All property […]

Read More