Cy Wakeman, Inc. v. Nicole Price Consulting, LLC
284 F. Supp. 3d 985
D. Neb.2018Background
- Cy Wakeman (plaintiff) is an author/speaker of "Reality-Based" leadership books/programs; Price (defendant) was an employee/speaker for Wakeman from 2012–2016 and later published Lively Paradox and started a consulting business.
- Wakeman alleges Price copied portions of her books and PowerPoint (copyright infringement) and disclosed confidential client relationships (misappropriation/trade secret claims). Wakeman sought a preliminary injunction to stop sales/use of the allegedly infringing materials and references to confidential clients.
- The court held an evidentiary hearing where both parties testified and submitted exhibits; no direct evidence of copying (e.g., admissions) was found.
- The court evaluated the request under the Dataphase preliminary-injunction framework and applicable copyright and trade-secret law.
- The court found Wakeman failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits for copyright or trade-secret claims and failed to prove irreparable harm; it denied the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lively Paradox infringes Wakeman's copyrights (substantial similarity) | Wakeman: Lively Paradox copies expression, organization, and illustrations from her books/PowerPoint | Price: no direct copying; shared ideas derive from common sources and expression differs; some items attributable to independent sources | Court: No likelihood of success — extrinsic similarity not shown for protected original elements; works not intrinsically similar as a whole |
| Whether irreparable harm exists to warrant injunction | Wakeman: publisher concerns and potential loss of sales/market justify irreparable harm | Price: damages would compensate any economic loss; injunction would devastate Price's business | Court: No clear, imminent irreparable harm shown; monetary relief adequate; injunction would be ineffectual or overly burdensome |
| Balance of harms and public interest | Wakeman: protect IP and reputation | Price: injunction would effectively close her business; public interest supports competition | Court: Balance favors Price; public interest neutral (IP protection vs. competition) |
| Whether client identities constitute trade secrets under Nebraska law | Wakeman: some client relationships were confidential and provide economic value by preserving business | Price: information known to Price and not shown to confer independent economic value to others | Court: No likelihood of success — client identities lack the required independent economic value and are not shown to be trade secrets |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (framework for preliminary injunctions)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (movant must show likelihood of irreparable harm)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (no automatic injunction upon finding of infringement)
- Warner Bros. Entm't v. X One X Prods., 644 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements of copyright infringement and access/substantial similarity analysis)
- Rottlund Co. v. Pinnacle Corp., 452 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2006) (direct copying vs. independent creation)
- AvidAir Helicopter Supply, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 663 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2011) (trade-secret value requirement)