415 F.Supp.3d 843
N.D. Ill.2019Background
- Aon sued Alliant and seven former Aon Construction Services Group employees alleging they were poached to Alliant and that, before departing, several defendants downloaded or copied confidential client data, proprietary tools, and other trade-secret material.
- Aon asserted eight claims including federal and Illinois trade-secret misappropriation, breach of contract (restrictive covenants), tortious interference, and declaratory relief.
- Aon moved for a temporary restraining order seeking to (a) enjoin solicitation of Aon clients and employees, (b) prohibit misuse/disclosure of Aon confidential information and require its return, (c) preserve relevant materials, (d) compel a defendant to provide a phone passcode, and (e) bar Alliant from hiring more Aon CSG employees.
- At hearings Alliant agreed the defendants would be bound (for TRO purposes) by the no-solicitation-of-employees covenant and the defendants agreed to abide by the non-disclosure covenants; factual disputes remained about downloaded materials and client contacts.
- The Court found Aon had a better-than-negligible chance on trade-secret and breach-of-contract (non-solicitation) claims, and that monetary damages could be inadequate given the nature of the alleged losses.
- The Court granted the TRO in part and denied in part: it enjoined solicitation of Aon clients (but declined to bar mere acceptance/servicing of clients), required protection/return/preservation of confidential materials, and provided narrower relief than Aon sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on trade-secret claims | Aon: defendants downloaded Aon client lists, proprietary tools, and intelligence; Aon protected secrets by contracts and technical measures | Alliant: onboarding/controls prevent access; defendants lack ability to use taken materials | Court: Aon showed trade-secret existence and circumstantial evidence of misappropriation; likelihood of success > negligible |
| Evidence of misappropriation (specific acts) | Aon: Lubas/Brusek copied large volumes to USBs; Walsh sought detailed premium data; Janic exported Outlook contacts after meeting Alliant | Defendants: offered benign explanations and Alliant says materials are inaccessible post-onboarding | Court: factual disputes exist but circumstantial evidence suffices at TRO stage to support misappropriation claim |
| Enforceability of non-solicitation covenant (solicit vs accept) | Aon: covenant is a limited non-solicitation covenant (2 years) protecting client relationships and is routinely enforced | Alliant: covenant is overbroad because it bars merely accepting or servicing clients who independently choose to follow employees | Court: non-solicitation provisions likely enforceable as to solicitation; covenant’s language barring mere acceptance may be overbroad, so TRO enjoined solicitation only (not acceptance/servicing) |
| Irreparable harm and adequacy of legal remedy; balance of harms | Aon: trade-secret misuse and client loss cause unquantifiable competitive and intangible injury; money damages inadequate; presumption of irreparable harm for trade secrets | Alliant: damages are quantifiable; onboarding prevents further misuse; injunction would harm employees/clients and restrict client choice | Court: presumption of irreparable harm for trade-secret misappropriation not overcome; loss of clients and competitive position is difficult to quantify—irreparable harm likely; balance favors limited injunctive relief protecting Aon’s secrets and preventing solicitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Promatek Indus., Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002) (TRO standard: likelihood of success, inadequate remedy at law, irreparable harm)
- Ty, Inc. v. Jones Grp., Inc., 237 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001) (balance-of-harms and nonparty interests in injunctive analysis)
- Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992) (probability-of-success vs balance-of-harms tradeoff for preliminary relief)
- Whitaker By Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) (movant need only show chance of success greater than negligible for preliminary relief)
- D.U. v. Rhoades, 825 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2016) (low threshold for likelihood of success on preliminary injunction)
- Vendavo, Inc. v. Long, 397 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (trade-secret proof, confidentiality measures, and TRO analysis)
- Allied Waste Servs. of N. Am., LLC v. Tibble, 177 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (elements of trade-secret misappropriation)
- Jano Justice Sys., Inc. v. Burton, 636 F. Supp. 2d 763 (C.D. Ill. 2009) (presumption of irreparable harm in trade-secret cases)
- Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 688 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (defendant may rebut presumption of irreparable harm)