Amedisys Holding, LLC v. Interim Healthcare of Atlanta, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59260
| N.D. Ga. | 2011Background
- Amedisys and Interim compete in home healthcare; both employ sales reps who solicit referrals from clinicians.
- Three Amedisys employees—Mack, Hogan, Cathey—resigned on April 18, 2011 to join Interim.
- Amedisys alleges the Referral Logs and Workbook contain trade secrets and were misappropriated.
- Mack allegedly emailed Referral Logs to her personal account; Hogan allegedly retained the Workbook after leaving.
- Amedisys sought TRO and later a preliminary injunction; Defendants provided sworn declarations and testimony at hearings.
- Court held TRO hearing May 6, 2011 and preliminary injunction hearing May 23, 2011; requests for relief were litigated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the Referral Logs and Workbook trade secrets? | Amedisys: confidential, not public, yields economic value; reasonable secrecy maintained. | Interim: logs/workbook are mere lists of names, not trade secrets. | Yes; they are protectable trade secrets. |
| Did Mack misappropriate trade secrets by emailing logs to herself? | Mack violated duties by transmitting confidential materials to compete at Interim. | Mack claimed emails were for legitimate work and not for misuse. | Yes; Mack misappropriated trade secrets. |
| Is Interim liable for Mack's alleged misappropriation under agency principles? | Interim is liable for acts within scope of employment benefiting Interim. | Liability turns on scope and conduct; some use may be personal. | Court finds Mack acted within Interim's scope; Interim liable for use. |
| Are there irreparable harms justifying injunctive relief? | Irreparable harm from continued use of misappropriated logs; time-sensitive competition. | Harm can be compensated; need to limit scope of relief. | Irreparable harm shown; injunction warranted against Mack. |
| Do the balance of harms and public policy support the injunction? | Protecting trade secrets outweighs defendant's interests; public policy favors fair competition. | Injunction overly restricts employee/ Interim operations. | Balance favors plaintiff; public interest supports protection of trade secrets. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capital Asset Research Corp. v. Finnegan, 160 F.3d 683 (11th Cir. 1998) (trade secrets require secrecy and economic value)
- Essex Group, Inc. v. Southwire Co., 269 Ga. 553 (1998) (combination/compilation protections in trade secrets)
- Paramount Tax & Accounting, LLC v. H&R Block E. Enters., 299 Ga.App. 596 (2009) (customer lists not publicly available may be trade secrets)
- Crews v. Roger Wahl, C.P.A., 238 Ga.App. 892 (1999) (confidentiality protects customer lists from public sources)
- Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Heinemann, 268 Ga. 755 (1997) (reasonable care and access controls support trade secret status)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010) (exceeding authorized access for competing use constitutes misappropriation)
- Int'l Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006) (scope of employment for employer liability depends on facts)
- Bennett v. United States, 102 F.3d 486 (11th Cir. 1996) (respondeat superior requires conduct within course of employment)
- Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2003) (preliminary injunction standards and considerations)
- MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Grp., LLC, 420 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2005) (district court's tailored injunctions are favored)
- Salsbury Labs., Inc. v. Merieux Labs., Inc., 735 F. Supp. 1537 (M.D. Ga. 1987) (public policy supporting trade secret protection in injunctive relief)
- AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 812 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1987) (injunctions tailored to misconduct may be appropriate)
- Corbin v. Corbin, 429 F. Supp. 276 (N.D. Ga. 1977) (monetary relief vs. injunction for irreparable harm)