Contemporary Services Corp. v. Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc.
677 F. App'x 314
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) sued Landmark Event Staffing and individuals alleging misappropriation of CSC-created documents and breach of contract after a former CSC employee (Grant Haskell) joined Landmark.
- CSC identified specific documents it claimed were trade secrets: customer lists (CSC California #17-18), a deployment workbook (CSC California #12), and a financial PowerPoint (CSC California #2).
- The district court granted summary judgment to Landmark on CUTSA and breach claims; CSC appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and examined whether CSC raised triable issues on trade-secret ownership and improper acquisition/use by Landmark.
- The Ninth Circuit found triable issues that certain CSC documents qualified as trade secrets and that Landmark may have ratified Haskell’s misappropriation by failing to act after learning of it.
- The court reversed summary judgment as to CUTSA and derivative breach claims, vacated the attorney’s-fee award as premature, and remanded for further proceedings on causation and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSC owned trade secrets in certain documents | Documents (customer lists, workbook, financial PPT) derive independent economic value and were subject to reasonable secrecy efforts | Documents not sufficiently secret or protectable as trade secrets | Triable issues exist that those specific documents are trade secrets; summary judgment reversed on those items |
| Whether Landmark acquired/used trade secrets through improper means | Landmark employees (via Haskell) acquired and used CSC documents; Landmark failed to stop use after learning of misappropriation | Landmark did not improperly acquire or ratify misuse | Triable issue that Landmark ratified Haskell’s misappropriation by not disavowing or stopping use after notice |
| Whether CSC proved causation and damages from misappropriation | Misuse led to economic harm to CSC | CSC failed to show causation/damages at summary judgment | District court did not decide; remanded for determination of causation and damages |
| Breach of contract claim dependent on CUTSA finding | Breach claim derives from misappropriation of trade secrets | Without trade-secret liability, breach claim fails | Because CUTSA issues survive, breach claim reversal warranted and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Cytodyn, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharm., Inc., 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 600 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (elements of a CUTSA misappropriation claim)
- Abba Rubber Co. v. Seaquist, 286 Cal. Rptr. 518 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (customer lists can qualify as trade secrets)
- Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (specific financial information may be a trade secret)
- PMC, Inc. v. Kadisha, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (employer liability where employer fails to investigate or act after notice of employee misappropriation)