Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. v. Byerly, 2:21-cv-00063

Plaintiffs Rayonier Advanced Materials, Inc. (RYAM) and Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC (RPF) allege defendant Joshua Byerly (former employee) misappropriated trade secrets and breached an NDA and related employment invention-assignment obligations.
Plaintiffs obtained a TRO (June 29, 2021) and a preliminary injunction (July 12, 2021) ordering return of trade secrets and restraining misappropriation; Plaintiffs posted a $5,000 bond.
Byerly was served but failed to file an answer; he appeared at hearings and made statements threatening massive financial/competitive harm if he disclosed information, while also claiming some statements were for attention and that he retained knowledge "in his mind."
Forensic analysis suggested Byerly used multiple removable storage devices and may possess Plaintiffs’ files; Plaintiffs say their formulas, processes, and plant configurations are secret and economically valuable.
The court held a default-judgment hearing, found Plaintiffs established imminent threat of misappropriation and irreparable harm not compensable by money, and entered a permanent injunction ordering return of all trade secrets; the $5,000 bond was returned and remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a permanent injunction is warranted under the DTSA/default judgment	Byerly poses an imminent threat of misappropriation; NDA breached; injunction necessary to prevent irreparable harm	Byerly minimized threats as attention-seeking and claims he has only knowledge in his mind, not disclosable files	Court granted permanent injunction to prevent misappropriation under DTSA and default-judgment authority
Whether monetary damages are adequate	Trade secrets cause irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by money	Implicitly that injunction would impair his interests (but he admitted no specific harm)	Court found monetary relief inadequate; irreparable harm shown
Balance of hardships	Plaintiffs would suffer catastrophic, irreversible business harm if secrets disclosed	Byerly argued injunction would not impact him materially; no concrete hardship shown	Court concluded hardships favor Plaintiffs; injunction imposes minimal burden on Byerly
Public interest in granting injunction	Protecting trade secrets promotes economic stability and innovation; public benefits from enforcement	No persuasive public-interest counterargument presented	Court found injunction consistent with public interest

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (2013) (default-judgment authority to enter injunctive relief)
Angel Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F.3d 1200 (2008) (four-factor permanent-injunction framework)
United States v. Jenkins, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (S.D. Ga. 2008) (irreparable injury defined as harm not compensable by money)
Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328 (1981) (discussion of irreparable injury and injunction standards)
Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (2000) (irreparable injury must be actual and imminent)