278 P.3d 197
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Moore worked for CAI under Jerry Welch in Skagit County; CAI and Volant are competitors in aircraft interior refurbishment.
- CAI required Moore sign NDAs in 2005 and 2008; Moore resigned in 2008.
- Volant expressed interest in acquiring CAI; Moore consulted for both sides in 2008-2009.
- Moore was rehired by CAI in 2009 and laid off in 2010 during RIF; no noncompete was sought.
- Volant was deterred from hiring Moore after CAI objected, citing trade secrets and confidentiality concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAI’s letter to Volant constituted improper interference | Moore | CAI lacked malice; letter protected by trade secrets | No improper purpose; dismissal proper |
| Whether CAI could defend on an affirmative good-faith belief | Moore | CAI acted to protect trade secrets in good faith | Affirmative defense upheld; good-faith belief dispositive |
| Whether RCW 49.44.010 (blacklisting) supports a civil action | Moore | Statute provides civil remedy for blacklisting | Statute actionable civil claim; but lacking malice evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Pleas v. City of Seattle, 112 Wash.2d 794 (Wash. 1989) (improper purpose required after five elements; burden shifts)
- Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 94 Wash.2d 359 (Wash. 1980) (good-faith assertion of protected interest negates liability)
- Leingang v. Pierce County Med. Bureau, Inc., 131 Wash.2d 133 (Wash. 1997) (arguable interpretations of existing law permissible in good faith)
- Elcon Const. Inc. v. E. Wash. Univ., 273 P.3d 965 (Wash. 2012) (inevitable disclosure doctrine discussed; no need to adopt)
- Dick v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 86 Wash. 211 (Wash. 1915) (civil action for violation of criminal statute of blacklisting)