Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401

Fox, as Target's director of development, acquired Target's assets post-bankruptcy including customer lists and confidential information in 2001.
Millman, a Target sales representative, was terminated in 2000 for alleged misconduct and began employment with Polymer Packaging in 2000, after Target's bankruptcy proceedings.
Millman provided Polymer with a customer list, which she claimed was hers, while Target argued the list remained Target's proprietary property; Polymer did not independently verify the list's origins.
Plaintiffs sued Millman and Polymer in 2004 asserting misappropriation of proprietary information and related torts, later substituting Polymer and the Lanham family as defendants.
Trial and appellate courts upheld laches as a defense and dismissed the complaint; the jury answered special interrogatories, leading to dismissal with prejudice, later reversed on certification.
The Court ultimately held that laches cannot be used to shorten a timely action under a statute of limitations and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether laches can bar a timely claim under a statute of limitations	Fox argues laches cannot apply when a six-year limitations period applies and the action is timely	Defendants contend laches should apply to defeat timely claims due to unreasonable delay and prejudice	Laches cannot bar a timely claim governed by a statute of limitations; reversal and remand for new trial
Whether continuing violation doctrine or discovery rule apply to timeliness	Plaintiffs rely on discovery or continuing violation theories to toll time	Defendants rely on laches as established by lower courts	The court rejected continuing violation as applicable and rejected laches as the controlling defense for timeliness in this statutory context
Whether the customer list was confidential/proprietary entitling relief	Customer list is confidential trade secret; defendants knew or should have known its origins	No evidence defendants knew Target's ownership; no independent duty to inquire	There remained genuine issues of material fact about ownership/origin; no automatic duty to inquire imposed on Polymer
Whether the trial court properly denied summary judgment and involuntary dismissal			Evidence supported denial of summary judgment and no involuntary dismissal
Whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded			Fee issue mooted by reversal and remand; arguments not addressed on remand

Lamorte Burns & Co., Inc. v. Walters, 167 N.J. 285 (N.J. 2001) (customer lists as confidential/proprietary information; trade secrets context)
Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 204 N.J. 239 (N.J. 2010) (employees’ duty to safeguard confidential information)
Lavin v. Hackensack Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 145 (N.J. 1982) (equitable laches when no statute of limitations; footnote on analogous statutes of limitations)
Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169 (N.J. 2003) (use of laches/equitable estoppel in context of statutes; avoid denial of timely claim)
Patterson v. Hewitt, 195 U.S. 309 (U.S. 1904) (distinction in applying laches to suits in equity vs. at law)