TK Elevator Corporation v. Drzewiecki
1:25-cv-00744
D. MarylandMar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff TK Elevator Corporation (TKE) alleges that former employee Nichole Drzewiecki took confidential business information when leaving TKE and supplied it to competitor Nouveau Elevator DC (Nouveau), her new employer.
- Drzewiecki had signed a Confidentiality, Non-Recruiting, Non-Solicitation Agreement with TKE, obligating her not to retain or use confidential information post-employment.
- TKE's forensic analysis revealed Drzewiecki downloaded files including customer and pricing information before her resignation.
- TKE sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and injunctive relief to prevent use/disclosure of misappropriated information and to mandate its return.
- Defendants opposed, and after a March 10, 2025 hearing, the Court denied the TRO except to require Drzewiecki to return information taken from TKE.
- TKE's claims included breach of contract, trade secrets violations under federal and state law, and related business torts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract (against Drzewiecki) | Drzewiecki violated agreement by taking info | Agreement unenforceable/unviolated | Likelihood of success found for breach of contract claim |
| Trade secrets misappropriation (DTSA/MUTSA) | Downloaded info are trade secrets, were misused | Information isn't trade secret/misused | No likelihood of success—trade secret status not established |
| TRO/injunctive relief against all defendants | Needed to prevent irreparable harm | No irreparable harm, delay in action | TRO denied as to Nouveau; relief limited to return of info |
| Scope and hardship of injunction | Relief should focus on info taken | Broad injunction would unduly burden | Relief limited to returning downloaded info, not all copies |
Key Cases Cited
- MicroStrategy Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (standard for preliminary injunctions; extraordinary remedies)
- Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802 (4th Cir. 1992) (requirements for injunctions in the 4th Circuit)
- Gill v. Computer Equipment Corp., 292 A.2d 54 (Md. 1972) (reasonableness standard for restrictive covenants)
- Tuttle v. Riggs-Warfield-Roloson, 246 A.2d 588 (Md. 1968) (enforceability of two-year non-solicitation agreements)
- Hebb v. Stump, Harvey & Cook, Inc., 334 A.2d 563 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975) (scope of reasonable restrictive covenants)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (irreparable harm must be actual/imminent for injunction)