Total Safety U.S., Inc. v. Knox DO NOT DOCKET - CASE TRANSFERRED OUT
4:19-cv-02718
S.D. Tex.Dec 18, 2019Background
- Total Safety US Inc and Total Safety Onsite Services Inc sued former employee Alicia Knox for alleged misappropriation of confidential business information and trade secrets and for breach of a nonsolicitation agreement after Total Safety acquired Knox’s former employer, Airgas.
- Plaintiffs sued under the federal Trade Secrets Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Texas trade-secret law, and for breach of contract, and sought a preliminary injunction.
- The parties agreed to an agreed preliminary injunction the court entered on July 30, 2019, requiring Knox to: preserve relevant evidence (no destruction/disclosure), refrain from soliciting Total Safety/Airgas customers in violation of the nonsolicitation agreement, and produce electronic devices for forensic review.
- Knox complied with the device-production requirement and later moved to dissolve the agreed preliminary injunction, arguing mootness/redundancy and invoking reconsideration standards.
- The court held a status conference, received briefing, and denied the motion, concluding Knox failed to show a "significant change in circumstances" warranting dissolution; the injunction remains in effect, without prejudice to a later motion to modify or clarify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard to modify/dissolve a preliminary injunction | Rule 60(b)(5)/Rufo/Horne requiring a showing of a significant change in law or facts | Same standard as initial injunction or FRCP 54(b) reconsideration | Court applies Rule 60(b)(5)/Rufo/Horne; requires significant change; rejects Knox’s FRCP 54(b) contention because she voluntarily agreed to injunction |
| Whether Knox has shown a significant change in factual circumstances | No; agreed injunction still serves its purpose | Device production and compliance moot obligations; injunction redundant with law/contract | Knox failed to show a significant change; injunction remains in effect |
| Whether forensic results foreclose the misappropriation claim | Forensics support Total Safety’s claim that Knox accessed sensitive customer information | Forensics show no misappropriation | Court declines to resolve the merits now; preserves injunction to maintain status quo |
| Whether redundancy/ambiguity of contract/nonsolicit makes injunction unnecessary | Injunction necessary and provides enforcement remedies beyond contract remedies | Injunction duplicates contractual/legal duties and is ambiguous | Redundancy/ambiguity is not a basis to dissolve; violations of injunction carry distinct contempt remedies; denial without prejudice to later modification/clarification |
Key Cases Cited
- Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) (Rule 60(b)(5) / Rufo framework applies to modifying injunctions; requires significant change)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (establishes "significant change" standard for modifying injunctions)
- Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2017) (district court may reconsider interlocutory orders under its inherent power)
- Bear Ranch, LLC v. Heartbrand Beef, Inc., 885 F.3d 794 (5th Cir. 2018) (refusal to modify injunction upheld where no significant change shown)
- Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discusses district court’s inherent power over interlocutory judgments)
- Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) (distinguishes contempt penalties and remedies for violating court orders)