he would hand down after conducting a bench trial rather than ruling on a motion for summary judgment but i guess i should not complain too loudly about it because taking years or it clearly establishes at least a promise face a case of misappropriation of trade secrets three sixty mortgages are asking this court to reverse judge fox and give us a chance a chance to present our case to a jury the proper fact finder as this court halan cosmopolis along with the second the existence of a trade secret is generally an issue of fact left to the jury not to the judge supreme court's decision a mark on a couple of weeks or so ago help us in this case i think we should  i'm not mitt my first question is do you think that's the state of law in north carolina the so called six factors that came from the restatement as i did see any sightings of those factors whatsoever in the of three sixty repaired his report and he compared the fifth circuit case all the issues are case where you look and see what is the  act economic activity before the list was taken compared to the economic activity nationwide and if you look at the the the graph that issue alone  eighteen ninety eight it clearly shows that while these group these brokers this list would maintain a bio three sixty secretly the activity the economic activity or three sixty exactly the nationwide businesses it was doing so so you're saying that north then north carolina factors don't come into play or you're saying or matter for trial the fact that three sixteen lost its funding through bank of america or certain warehouse funding apparently that they didn't have an agent to replace miss glen in north carolina so there were a lot of other reasons could've been but you're saying postpone it in the last quarter toward the end of the year two thousand and eleven if you look and see what happened three sixty's were economic activity in north carolina continues o but it's a factor for the jury to good sort of because if you look at the graph nationwide beginning in two thousand and twelve january two thousand where we're straighter lots of activity lots of economic lots of loans being made north carolina just the opposite proximate cause that you that you brought up here the statutory definition of misappropriation acquisition of trade secrets so as proximate cause of damage even requiring that some are state  the jury may reject this analysis but at least we have an opportunity to give it to me show it to an organ these other factors that you mentioned just that's something that the jury will concern as well but we don't have to show this is the only the only thing that was going on there may be some other factors at play but this just has to be one of those factors not even the predominant sucked but just a factor that camos economic damages oh and if you  what is it about the were essentially our customer names and listen this case which generally as a matter of law is not protected information what is it about these particular lists the make them different well had a big computer literate understand the internet how that worked they had to be the best of the best they had to produce more money with less problems and there any evidence that record on how much time and money was expended in that though there's not other than there was considerable time of there's only one process you knew brokers come in and on the list and then some even retired taken off the list of the not productive as it turns out but it's an ongoing process at three six he uses but as judge found they went to great lengths to protect its secrecy so that nobody else could get them because this made them highly profitable and they only how many brokers how many brokers are we talking about well they only some of the second mis brokers list to the imminent if she had not done that and simply rely on her memory to somerset this business when we still have a case though she said she could if she could rely on her memory to do this i don't think there's a will we could  force her from now because she was not supposed to take any confidential information with her but from a practical matter and she signed that all kinds of things that before she went to work what is the practical monell think you can to keep someone from remembering somebody is name i don't think you can oh but that's not what happened here she sonando of the list but she also sent their economic activity showing them out of work and they were doing these are really really top notch brokers and and you need them and you know the next day after they got the list what did they do she and her soon to be bali oco she had resigned from three sixty's started contacting these brokers and went to see him come work with us  applications fell a mile and that's exactly what happened the the three factors that are really important i think in this case are the first three because it doesn't matter how much money you spent or how much time he's been in developing some proprietary information if you don't take all reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy it can never be a trade secret and that's exactly what happened in this case even just fought for you the first three factors including but not limited to formula pattern program device compilation of information so you're saying it's a compilation of been for me yes it is here's the thing else under the statute other than a compilation of information carolina court said north carolina courts of he'll call us history information price list pricing formulas beginning formulas and customer list to be trade secrets and the statute specifically says you have to prove causation and the court the cases of this court specifically well sixty six dash one fifty four says that if and this is i'm sixty six dash one fifty four eighty two the very last sentence if the use of the trade secret has no adverse economic effect upon the owner of the trade secret the only available remedy shall be an injunction against disclosure so monetary damages here are the before us which was the existence of a tracey it had been admitted below but judge flanagan in that case for circuit didn't reach it because they agreed with judge plan against first analysis that there was no misappropriation but she has a full discussion of the proximate cause element in a misappropriation case which was a second basis for her ruling a blow but again did not have to be reached here so you're saying one can have a misappropriation trade secrets body acquisition that case in that case it's clear the confidential information at issue was admitted to be a trade secret so the only issue was was it misappropriated our case judge fox doesn't even get to the misappropriation because you have to go back to sixty six ash one fifty two which is the start of our north carolina statute and has the definition of trade secret and here it was required that three sixty meet its burden of specifying what its trade secrets were with particular ty and then also demonstrating that the information that it specifically identified here really only the outlook lists and the facts that they were trade secrets now as noted previously the outlook lists these are not maintained on the secure web site that is it's clear from the record if you read all of their sites for the information that was on the secure sir refer to the facts if you read the deposition testimony and look at the exhibits being referred to when i was there i handled this case in the lower court i know what they were referring to in the record is clear what they were referring to was the facts not the outlook lists it is undisputed that the outlook lists were put on glenn's personal laptop by her maintained by her not on any secure web site not on any password protection and were merely emailed to herself it's as if she brought a rolodex with her after twenty years in the industry and she took it with her so i just wanted to clarify that piece about the outlook now with respect to the facts we get to the issue of are they a trade secret judge fox correctly w secrets and so in general at the pleadings to age a customer less might be fined a sufficiently plead a trade secrets case but when you get to the summerise judgment stage if you look at those cases where customer less were found to be trade secrets they generally contain more information for example in the g e bat's case there was a lot more there were years and years of information it had the names of the customers and the column after column of additional information so while they were referred to as quote customer less they were more the names and contact information here the outlook lists there's absolutely no evidence that they were anything more than names and contact information but i do want to get to the issue of causation because i think there are some really important cases and there is a distinction in the schools or case that those three sixty relies on heavily first of all it's dropped and they didn't drop elsewhere that's all they say there is no link between any misappropriation and this drop and for example in schools or which they cite which is circuit case applying oregon law there is no misappropriation client that was a covenant not to compete involving the still part valves where the employee agreed to be the exclusive seller for the entity different pieces of evidence on the issue of damages only one of which was the strop and sales and what the court specifically found was that but for the interference of taking the simply we think that the jury could find that the sales dropped when our case glen's departure is not actionable she did not have a non compete and she was free to go to a competitor so oh so those are says if you have a drop in sales that might be indicative that the loss of the employee in a tortious interference with contract case such as that one might be indicative that the employee's departure in your picking him off  been in the industry thirteen months or for the ten months prior to her becoming the sole account executive in north carolina they didn't have anybody they had only six funded loans in north carolina when she can't how do we have value way that in terms of summary judgment was asking is that after she left she was the only north carolina county executive in north carolina for three sixty and i understand she's the boots on the ground she's the one dealing with these customers now the people  she's the one who has these relationships she'd been in there twenty year she leaves for fifteen months they don't hire a sales man in north carolina they want to get lost sales without a salesman and that's exactly what they're trying to state for example in the running to me like the jury are well in the charlottesville music case which is this this court or circuit case it's six fifty five up second thirty eight in that case for example there was a sales decrease but the court said that opinion i don't know if i'm pronouncing that right did not offer sufficient proof that the business decline of its virginia beach retailer was caused by the causation here it's just a fact report as alleges that you got a nationwide look at how things are going and then when the ms glen took certain names and then when she left and someone who develops and identified as a list of customers who are really really good customers yet is not exclusive in about it can go out and develop a list but if you go through the compilation of this list least from them only potentially that's a trade secret if you go and do that hard work of pulling this list and you've got an employee who takes that list and then rads around with her potential new employer her and introduce them and then sales drop we only talk of summary judgment what why can't a jury look at what for example there is absolutely no evidence to tie the customers they met with list those were all loans that she brought to three sixty those customers most of whom she already had existing relationships and there is absolutely no evidence that any of the customers on that list would have done business with three sixty eight but for somethin callender stone gate did there is no loan identified anywhere in the record that anybody claims would have come to three sixty but for act there's absolutely no testimony from any customer that they would have done business with three sixty four some at the only sorry as you say the only customer testimony which is in the record our customer something illegal what incentive come in provided information so they work for the end consumer and they want to get the best product at the best rate so while the personal relationship is extremely important they're not off against the other one to them to say this is better and work up a package that was a what incentive would they have to come back and says well the owner is not came here is because of her went zero eight one when all they're interested in is as you say their customers and their customers of benefiting from it they don't hear about a list that's exclusive to three sixty this industry doesn't work is a pretty process that the rates are published and the products are different so the different lenders have different products that they sell that they do better in and remember stunk it had its own body process it would get from the brokers the information that they wanted so this is because this kind of interest and seems to be your argument is that the list was really worthless i mean what and all that much to it but i mean she tried to get this job and they wouldn't they made an offer to them and was only after she brought a list to them all these people that they  two to office offer to your it's typical in the industry if you're moving in and this happened when she came from wells fargo to three sixty they say what your pipeline like pipeline is what do you have in the works let me kind of see what you might produce on a monthly or bi monthly basis so i can see what revenue i might make versus what i'm going to offer you just as when she came to three sixty she brought her she said her wells fargo pipeline she sent her three sixty pipeline to purely for negotiation of compensation and she was training with stone gate before she left three sixty and when her manager knew she was getting ready to leave and she was still see her customers are her bread and butter so she was still actively put in loans through three sixty in fact it's unrefuted that even after she left loans that were in her pipeline closed so she she did not want to hurt these customers at all and that list was only a value in negotiating compensation and that that's unrefuted in the record i see my time is about up and i know judge keenan i think you had a question that maybe didn't get answered and i want to be sure to answer yeah no i don't i'm just wondering here what does the record show regarding stone gate profit after glenn join of summary judgment to just show we're lost in north carolina and my question to you is there a requirement to show that also that stone gate again and if so is that information in the record it's important to show that stone gate gained from the misappropriation of trade secrets absolutely and that is the element that is one hundred percent missing there is no link between anything that stone gate either gain or three sixty lost and any misappropriation of trade secrets all there is is the speculative notion that business was lost but the loss of one is not actionable they didn't hire anybody for fifteen months and they cannot show that their reluctance specific identifiable there any evidence that stone i don't think approved list with her that sales of mortgages went down hill in north carolina while simultaneously they were going skyrocketing in all of the states in the nation even states where and we do say is a compilation of information in the go to the next paragraph that has potential commercial value and a customer list and that's what this approve oak broker list was was nothing more than a customer list and it was great and who were still on the payroll of three sixty story contacting these brokers and then in the before she left right before she resigned on the fourteenth only twelve she went back into that dentist and access that same information again and she was last year a deposition what did you do that she said that i guess i just want to make sure that i had it but why would you want to make sure you had something oh and i will say judge when your question the reason we address proximate cause in our