Los Angeles partner Mark Terman and associates Sujata Wiese and Shamar Toms-Anthony updated their article in Practical Law titled “Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements (CA).” In their article, Mark, Sujata and Shamar discuss how companies can protect their information, including the use of confidentiality agreements and related practices, under California law. They also outline practical tips on developing internal systems and contract provisions designed to protect a company’s sensitive information, including its business assets and relationships, data security and trade secrets.
Los Angeles partner Mark Terman recently authored an article for the Daily Journal titled, “Developing a Trade Secret Protection Program to Reduce Risk and Increase Court Enforcement.”
Mark Terman, Sujata Wiese and Shamar Toms-Anthony updated their article authored with Practical Law titled “Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements (CA).” In their article, Mark, Sujata and Shamar discuss how companies can protect their information, including the use of confidentiality agreements and related practices, under California law.
Mark Terman and Sujata Wiese authored a practice note for Practical Law titled “Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreements (CA).” In their note, Mark and Sujata discuss how companies can protect their information, including the use of confidentiality agreements, under California law.
Mark and Sujata address considerations involved in safeguarding a company’s confidential information, and substantive provisions and issues common to many commercial confidentiality agreements. They state that “having effective confidentiality agreements in place with other parties is necessary but not sufficient to protect an organization’s confidential information and data. Comprehensive protection requires the participation and coordination of management and staff at all levels across all functions, from finance and administration to marketing and sales. It often falls to the legal department, working closely with the information technology (IT) function and with the support of senior executives, to lead the company-wide information management and protection program.”
Topics addressed in the note include: company-wide information and data security policies; compliance with contractual obligations governing others’ confidential information; trade secrets; privacy and data security laws and regulations; and form, structure and key provisions of confidentiality agreements.
It’s an employer’s worst nightmare: you discover that a former employee has stolen a company trade secret. You know you must act immediately to keep this extremely important and sensitive information from being disseminated or risk losing important intellectual property protection. However, protecting a misappropriated trade secret is very difficult, particularly in situations where the suspected misappropriator is unlikely to follow a court order. Thankfully, the recently passed Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) includes helpful seizure provisions an employer may use to recover and prevent dissemination of trade secrets from suspected misappropriators.
What Is The Defend Trade Secrets Act?
President Obama signed the DTSA into law on May 11, 2016. This new law is effective immediately and provides a nation-wide civil cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. Although companies may still pursue trade secret litigation under state causes of action, the DTSA permits companies to prosecute their claims in federal court, thus allowing them to avoid the complexity and cost of pursuing trade secret claims in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
What Are The DTSA’s Seizure Provisions?
Significantly, the DTSA includes an ex parte seizure provision allowing “the seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination” of trade secrets, meaning the employer may seize property through court order without providing notice to the other party. See DTSA § 2(b)(2). To receive a court order allowing such seizure, the employer must:
• Allege specific facts showing that the suspected misappropriator would “evade, avoid, or otherwise not comply with” other extraordinary relief, such as a temporary restraining order, and would “destroy, move, hide, or otherwise make [the property to be seized] inaccessible to court” if notified of the seizure proceedings;
• Be able to show that the employer would suffer “immediate and irreparable injury” if the requested seizure were not occur, and that such injury would be greater than any to be suffered by the suspected misappropriator or any third parties if the seizure request is granted;
• Be able to show that the suspected misappropriator has actual possession of the trade secret and either misappropriated or conspired to use improper means to misappropriate that trade secret;
• Describe, with reasonable particularity and to the extent reasonable, what is to be seized and where it is located; and
• Not have publicized the requested seizure.
See id. § 2(b)(2)(A)(ii). Orders of seizure are executed by a Federal law enforcement officer. The employer may not participate in the seizure, although the law enforcement officer may request to be accompanied by an unaffiliated technical expert. Any materials seized will be held in court custody until a hearing can be held, although a motion to encrypt seized material may be made at any time. See id. § 2(b)(B), (D), and (H).
What Does This Mean For Employers?
The good news is that now if a trade secret is misappropriated, employers may be able seize it and halt its dissemination before irreparable harm has occurred. In our modern world where information can be copied and transported across state lines (or international boarders) in mere moments, this is very important. However, there are a number of cautions employers should be aware of:
• Seizure under the DTSA is extraordinary relief only. The DTSA’s drafters contemplated it would be used in instances such as when “a defendant is seeking to flee the country or planning to disclose the trade secret to a third party immediately or not otherwise amendable to…the court’s orders.” Rep. No. 114-220 at 9 (2016). Accordingly, seizure will be permitted only in the most extreme situations.
• The DTSA requires an employer seeking seizure to provide 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.” DTSA 2(b)(B)(vi). This security will not act as a cap on damages if it is later determined that property was wrongfully seized.
• The DTSA’s drafters struggled with handling misappropriated trade secrets contained in electronic files. If, for example, an employee downloaded files containing trade secrets from her company computer onto a flash drive, the court could seize that flash drive. The situation becomes more murky, however, when an employee transmits files containing trade secrets to himself via his personal email (thus leaving a copy on the server of the email provider), or uploads company files to a third party cloud service. In order to protect these unintended recipients, the DTSA’s drafters included carve outs prohibiting seizure from innocent third parties (although injunctions prohibiting disclosure are permitted). Accordingly, until the employer can obtain other relief, the trade secret will remain on the third party’s server, potentially vulnerable to misappropriation from bad actors engaged in cyberespionage.
On balance, the DTSA is a helpful piece of legislation that will greatly assist employers in protecting trade secrets under certain circumstances. However, as with any new piece of legislation, it is unclear how these provisions, particularly those concerning electronic information, will be applied in practice.
If you would like to discuss best practices for keeping trade secrets secure or need help dealing with potentially misappropriated trade secrets, please contact the author or any member of our Labor and Employment Practice Group.
It’s been a busy and, let’s say notable, week in the area of employment law. Here’s a quick recap, with more to come in future posts, of what you may have missed if you were focused elsewhere this week.
First, OSHA published a new injury Rule this week. While it does not take effect until January 1, 2017, employers should not wait until then to begin thinking about what changes may be necessary to ensure full compliance in the new year. The rule changes create a new cause of action for employees if they suffer retaliation for reporting a workplace injury, and employers are expected to ensure that policies addressing safety do not discourage employees from reporting such injuries. Large employers will also have some additional reporting requirements to OSHA. And, significantly, and in line with the current administration’s agenda of transparency, OSHA will begin making injury data accessible to the public, after removing any personally identifiable information regarding employees. That’s just a summary, with more to come in a future blog post. Stay tuned.
Second, did you hear that President Obama signed into law the Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016? Yes, that’s right, claims for trade secret misappropriation are not just limited to what the applicable state law provides. The new law creates a federal cause of action for the theft/misappropriation of trade secrets that are “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” The law also creates a new mechanism for a court to order the civil seizure of property, ex parte, if an employer can meet certain stringent standards for such an order.
Third, not to be overshadowed by either the President or OSHA, the EEOC published its own resource document this week regarding employer duties to provide leave as a reasonable accommodations in the workplace. While the new resource tracks what the EEOC has been saying for many years (or what we, as employment attorneys, know from tracking EEOC litigation and publications), the new resource delves a little deeper into how employers should be analyzing an employee’s request for leave and may be a helpful resource for employers who may still be under the mistaken impression that simply applying a leave policy (or workplace rule) the same to everyone is acceptable under the ADA (hint: we know that employers must modify policies for individuals with a disability if doing so could be a form of reasonable accommodation). Our mantra of no more “automatic termination” policies can no longer be ignored. This is serious stuff. Lots more to come on this topic.
Fourth, the EEOC was also busy issuing a new fact sheet on bathroom access for transgender employees. The fact sheet is brief, essentially reciting the few decisions issued on the topic, and reiterating for employers that transgender employees must be permitted to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity (not biological sex) and cannot be conditioned on an employee having undergone reassignment surgery. Also, employers beware, providing a separate, single-user bathroom for a transgender employee is a form of discrimination (although you can provide a single-user bathroom for use by all employees). A transgender employee must have equal access to the common bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity, regardless of whether it makes other employees uncomfortable.
These are just a few of the many things that happened this week. Stay tuned for further analysis on these topics and more (including the much-anticipated DOL overtime regulations that could be published as early as next week).