Executive Trim Construction Inc. v. Gross, 1:20-cv-00544

Background

Executive Trim Construction (Plaintiff) sued former employee Christopher Gross and Suddath Van Lines alleging breach of loyalty, trade secret misappropriation, CFAA "hacking," tortious interference, slander, and related claims after Gross resigned on April 30, 2020 and sent bid information to Suddath.
Plaintiff obtained emails and attachments from an account tied to Gross; Defendants dispute how those personal emails were accessed and raise Stored Communications Act/privacy concerns.
Plaintiff's employee handbook disclaims any expectation of privacy in company IT resources and reserves the right to inspect company devices.
Plaintiff obtained a TRO on May 15, 2020; the parties litigated a preliminary injunction hearing held August 11, 2020.
Defendants represent they will not use the disclosed bid information, will return/destroy copies, and that Suddath will not bid on the relevant projects.
The Court denied the preliminary injunction, dissolved the TRO, granted Defendants' motion to exclude Rule 807 hearsay, and denied other evidentiary motions as moot or without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff may use emails from Gross's personal account obtained after resignation	Emails show misappropriation and are admissible; company policy allowed access to company devices/accounts	Access to personal email may have violated SCA; some emails were not transmitted over company systems and were private	Denied preclusion as premature; evidence motion denied without prejudice because provenance is disputed and some emails were sent after resignation
Whether plaintiff may introduce hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 807 (defamation-related statements)	Proposed Rule 807 statements show reputational harm and financial impact	Defendants argue hearsay and irrelevance to injunctive relief limited to trade secrets	Excluded: Court held Rule 807 testimony irrelevant to preliminary injunction and barred its use
Whether Plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunction	Disclosure of bid/trade-secret information will cause ongoing, unquantifiable business loss that money cannot remedy	Defendants say they will not use/ disclose info, will return/destroy copies; any loss is measurable and compensable by damages	Plaintiff failed to show likely irreparable harm; injunction denied and TRO dissolved
Likelihood of success on merits of trade secret and CFAA claims	Bid calculations and pricing data are trade secrets; Gross exceeded authorized access under CFAA	Pricing components are ordinary, not unique trade secrets; Gross was authorized to access company system while employed, so CFAA doesn't apply	Plaintiff unlikely to succeed: trade-secret claim weak because info is routine pricing data and no shown use; CFAA claim unlikely because access was authorized while employed

Key Cases Cited

Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (discussing employer access to personal e-mail and suppression under Stored Communications Act/privacy expectations)
Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard for preliminary injunctions in the Second Circuit)
United States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2015) (interpreting "exceeds authorized access" in the CFAA narrowly in spatial/file-access terms)
WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC v. Miller, 687 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2012) (refusing to expand CFAA to faithless employees who misuse access)
E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Sec. Seals, 31 N.Y.3d 441 (N.Y. 2018) (New York law definition and standards for misappropriation of trade secrets)
Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (factors for determining trade-secret status)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary relief and standards for granting)