710 F.Supp.3d 425
D. Maryland2024Background
- ClearOne Advantage, LLC is a debt-settlement company holding confidential customer lead data, accessible only by employees.
- Defendants Michael H. Kersen and Lamar Gilmore were hired as remote account executives in March 2023; both signed confidentiality and telecommuting agreements restricting use and disclosure of confidential information.
- Kersen was terminated in May 2023 and Gilmore in November 2023; it is alleged that post-termination, Kersen conspired with Gilmore to misappropriate customer leads for an unknown competitor.
- Defendants allegedly tried to recruit additional current ClearOne employees to join the scheme in exchange for payment.
- Plaintiff sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent further misappropriation and solicitation, asserting imminent irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural requirements for TRO | ClearOne complied with notice attempts, affidavits establish harm | Defendants not heard; potentially evasive | Requirements satisfied; Court proceeds ex parte |
| Breach of contract | Defendants violated confidentiality and non-solicitation terms | No argument yet presented | ClearOne likely to succeed; contracts enforceable |
| Misappropriation of trade secrets (DTSA/MUTSA) | Customer lead database is a protected trade secret, misappropriated by Defendants | No argument yet presented | Likelihood of success shown on trade secret claims |
| Irreparable harm and balance of equities | Risk of loss of goodwill, customers, trade secrets, not compensable by damages | No argument yet presented | ClearOne faces actual and imminent irreparable harm; equities favor TRO |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 174 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 1999) (standards for TROs and preliminary injunctions; ex parte procedure)
- RRC N.E. LLC v. BAA Md., Inc., 994 A.2d 430 (Md. 2010) (breach of contract elements)
- Allegis Grp., Inc. v. Jordan, 951 F.3d 203 (4th Cir. 2020) (restrictive covenants and enforceability)
- Holloway v. Faw, Casson & Co., 572 A.2d 510 (Md. 1990) (employer’s protectable interest in customer non-solicitation)
- Deutsche Post Global Mail, Ltd. v. Conrad, [citation="116 F. App'x 435"] (4th Cir. 2004) (restrictive covenants reasonableness factors)
- Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 6.56 Acres, 915 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2019) (irreparable harm in injunctive relief)