Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00505/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00505-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Zep, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Brody Chemical Company, Inc. and

individuals Mark Bartley, Neil Carse,

Wayne Cassidy, Richard Crouse, and

Anthony Strukel, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-505-PHX-NVW

ORDER

The parties have requested clarification of certain issues relating to the Court’s

order granting Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. ## 68, 72.) The Court

provides the following amendments and clarifications to its previous order. (Doc. # 66.) 

The Court finds as a fact that Zep cut its sales representatives’ commissions in half

for individual orders of less than $150. Accordingly, the Court amends the discussion

beginning on line 21 of its previous order to read as follows:

To be a Restricted Customer, during the six month period immediately

preceding the establishment of a given Sales Representative’s employment

relationship with Brody, the customer 1) must have purchased Zep product

from that Sales Representative, and 2) must not have purchased Brody product

from any Brody sales representative. A Sales Representative will be enjoined

from soliciting or selling to a Restricted Customer for six months if 1) that

Sales Representative has solicited or sold to that customer on behalf of Brody

since establishing an employment relationship with Brody, and 2) that

customer placed at least one individual order of $150 or more of Zep product

in the six month period immediately preceding the establishment of that Sales

Representative’s employment relationship with Brody. All Brody employees,

Case 2:09-cv-00505-NVW Document 75 Filed 05/04/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

including the Sales Representatives, will be enjoined from soliciting or selling

to any Restricted Customer for three months.

The Court also amends page 1, lines 23–24 of its order to read: “Zep employs over 20,000

people in various locations.” 

The purpose of the injunction is to eliminate the commercial advantage that Brody

obtained by misappropriating Zep’s trade secrets to take Zep’s customers. Therefore, the

above noted changes clarify that the injunction prohibits all Brody employees, including

administrative staff operating Brody’s telephone order lines, from selling to Restricted

Customers.

All relevant Brody employees must be provided with adequate notice of the list of

Restricted Customers and the duration of the restriction. The Court contemplates that

such notice at least requires Brody’s employees to know the names and general locations

of the Restricted Customers, though it is probably not necessary to provide full addresses. 

The parties will be ordered to develop a method to provide sufficient notice to Brody’s

employees without unnecessarily compromising Zep’s customer information. 

With respect to Brody’s destruction of Zep’s customer information, whenever

possible physical copies should be returned to Zep rather than destroyed. Brody must

destroy its electronic records of Zep’s customer information. However, Zep must have an

opportunity to complete whatever discovery it wishes to perform before Brody finally

destroys its electronic records. The parties will be ordered to confer on a time line for

Zep to complete its discovery of Brody’s electronic records before Brody destroys those

records. 

Lastly, the size of the preliminary injunction bond that Defendant must post will be

increased to a total of $250,000. Having reviewed the scope of the preliminary

injunction, the Court realized that its original bond of $100,000 was sufficient to cover

damages only to the Sales Representatives. The scope of the injunction, however,

includes all Brody sales to Restricted Customers, not just sales made by the Sales

Case 2:09-cv-00505-NVW Document 75 Filed 05/04/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

Representatives. Therefore, the amount of the bond must be increased to adequately

cover the damages to Brody and the Sales Representatives in the event that the injunction

is lifted. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court’s order granting Zep’s preliminary

injunction is amended to reflect the above noted changes.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties develop a method to provide

sufficient notice to Brody’s employees of the identity of the Restricted Customers and the

duration of the restriction without unnecessarily compromising Zep’s customer

information.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that whenever possible physical copies should be

returned to Zep rather than destroyed and that the parties confer on a time line for Zep to

complete its discovery of Brody’s electronic records of Zep’s customer information

before Brody destroys those records.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zep must post a preliminary injunction bond of

$250,000 before a preliminary injunction will issue. 

DATED this 4th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00505-NVW Document 75 Filed 05/04/09 Page 3 of 3