Free for a Fee

A defendant company was unaware, when it hired two individuals, that they had entered into non-competition agreements with their prior employer.  As a result, according to a Florida federal court, the prior employer did not have a valid cause of action against the new employer for intentionally interfering with those non-compete obligations.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2014/07/articles/practice-procedure/a-defendant-without-knowledge-that-employees-it-just-hired-have-existing-non-competes-cannot-be-found-liable-for-tortious-interference-with-contract/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TradingSecrets+%28Trading+Secrets%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

By Katherine E. Perrelli, Dawn Mertineit and Erik W. Weibust

Last week, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick proposed sweeping legislation that would eliminate employee non-compete agreements in Massachusetts.

Eliminating All Employee Non-Competes in Massachusetts

Adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.tradesecretslaw.com/2014/04/articles/trade-secrets/massachusetts-governor-proposes-sweeping-legislation-banning-non-compete-agreements/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TradingSecrets+%28Trading+Secrets%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani]

Mintz v. Bartelstein & Assocs, CV 12 02554 SVW (SSx) (Aug. 14, 2012)

Mintz is a sports agent who represents among others, some NBA players. He worked for Bartelstein & Associates for 11 years. After leaving to accept a position with a competitor (CAA), he sought declaratory relief to invalidate his non-compete agreement. Bartelstein counterclaimed saying that Mintz allegedly misappropriated trade secrets and conspired with Mintz’s current employer to steal clients. Bartelstein subpoenaed Mintz’s phone records from AT&T. The subpoena sought ten categories of documents, the bulk of which related to the dates, times, and numbers/accounts for Mintz’s phone calls. The court grants in part and denies in part Mintz’s motion to quash the subpoena as follows:

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/08/stored_communic.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.