Letterle & Assoc. v. Treschow, S. & Lehman, P.
Letterle & Assoc. v. Treschow, S. & Lehman, P. No. 1178 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Letterle purchased Chambers Environmental and required employee Steven Treschow to sign a confidentiality, non-solicitation, and IP agreement (two-year nonsolicit post-termination; broad definition of “Confidential Information” including customer lists).
- Treschow left Letterle in November 2014 and began employment with competitor P. Joseph Lehman, Inc. (Lehman).
- Letterle learned some former clients engaged Lehman and that a Lehman employee solicited the Mount Union Fire Department; Letterle sent Treschow a cease-and-desist letter in January 2015; Treschow denied wrongdoing.
- Letterle sued and later sought a preliminary injunction after depositions (May 2016), asking to enjoin Treschow and Lehman from soliciting Letterle clients and to bar Treschow from using or disclosing Letterle’s confidential/customer data, files, and lists.
- The trial court denied the nonsolicitation injunction but granted an injunction preventing Treschow from using or disclosing Letterle’s customer lists, data, and files as confidential/trade-secret information.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Superior Court affirmed denial of the nonsolicit relief but reversed the injunction as to customer data/files/lists, holding the record did not support treating that information as confidential or trade secrets under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Letterle) | Defendant's Argument (Treschow/Lehman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Treschow possessed Letterle customer lists/files/data that are protectable | Treschow had client contact data (phone, emails), forwarded client emails to personal account, and provided prospects to Lehman; these are Letterle’s confidential/customer lists | Treschow denied taking or maintaining Letterle lists; client contacts were personal knowledge or publicly available; prospect lists were not Letterle’s lists | Court: Insufficient evidence that Treschow possessed Letterle customer lists/files; injunction against use/disclosure of such lists reversed |
| Whether customer contacts/data qualify as “confidential information” under the agreement | Customer lists and client data fall within the Agreement’s definition and were acquired during employment | Contacts were generally known or obtainable in ordinary course and thus not "not generally known" or protectable | Court: Customer contact data was generally obtainable in normal course and did not meet Agreement’s confidentiality requirement for injunction |
| Whether customer lists/data constitute trade secrets warranting injunctive relief | Lists/data represent employer investment and constitute trade secrets deserving protection | The data was compiled in normal course, obtainable legitimately, and not a particular secret of Letterle | Court: Data/files/lists were not trade secrets here; injunction was an abuse of discretion and reversed |
| Whether preliminary injunction factors otherwise supported the injunction (irreparable harm, likelihood of success, balance of harms) | Letterle argued ongoing irreparable harm and likelihood of success on merits | Defendants argued lack of actionable confidential/trade secret information and insufficient proof of ongoing harm | Court: Because activity sought to be restrained was not actionable (no protectable secret/lists), injunction was improper; denial re: nonsolicit left intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Warehime v. Warehime, 860 A.2d 41 (Pa. 2004) (plenary review of record in preliminary injunction matters; scope of review described)
- Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount Inc., 828 A.2d 995 (Pa. 2003) (trial court’s injunction review is highly deferential)
- Shepherd v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 25 A.3d 1233 (Pa. Super. 2011) (confidential information and trade secrets are protectable business interests)
- Iron Age Corp. v. Dvorak, 880 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2005) (customer lists/data may be trade secrets only under certain circumstances; not protected if obtainable legitimately)
- A.M. Skier Agency, Inc. v. Gold, 747 A.2d 936 (Pa. Super. 2000) (customer lists not protected where not developed by employer or obtainable by legitimate means)
- Robinson Electronic Supervisory Co. v. Johnson, 154 A.2d 494 (Pa. 1959) (customer lists can be trade secrets when developed by employer and representing investment)
- Bell Fuel Corp. v. Cattolico, 544 A.2d 450 (Pa. Super. 1988) (no protection where information is not a particular secret developed by employer)