Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00013/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00013-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Metso Minerals Industries Incorporated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Patrick Oakes, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-00013-PHX-DGC

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION 

 Plaintiff Metso Minerals Industries, Inc. (“Metso”) has filed a motion seeking a 

preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65. Doc. 14. The motion is fully briefed and 

neither party has requested oral argument. The Court will grant the motion. 

I. Background. 

 Metso develops, manufactures, services, and sells mining and construction 

equipment, including rock crushers for processing ore and resizing rock. Doc. 17, ¶ 5. 

Over the past several years, Metso has made substantial investments to develop a new 

High Pressure Roll Crusher (“HRC”). Id., ¶ 19; Doc. 14 at 3. Metso is currently in the 

process of testing and refining a prototype HRC in Arizona. Doc. 17, ¶ 19. Associated 

with this prototype are many confidential, proprietary, and trade secret documents related 

to the design specifications, performance, installation, maintenance, repair, and assembly 

of the new equipment. Id. 

 Plaintiff Patrick Oakes was employed as an Estimator, Sales Support & Project 

Manager for Metso. Id., ¶ 23. Oakes had access to confidential, proprietary, and trade 

Case 2:14-cv-00013-JJT Document 30 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

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 

secret information about multiple Metso products during his time at Metso. Doc. 17, 

¶ 29, Doc. 14 at 4. As an employee at Metso, Oakes signed a “Creations, Confidentiality, 

Trade Secrets & Company Property Agreement.” Doc. 14 at 3. As part of this 

agreement, Oakes made three commitments: (1) he would not use any of Metso’s 

confidential information for his benefit or the benefit of others during and for a period of 

two years following his employment at Metso; (2) he understood that he had an 

independent obligation under trade secret law to refrain from misappropriating or 

disclosing Metso’s trade secrets; and (3) he would promptly deliver any and all copies of 

company property in his possession to Metso upon termination. Doc. 14-4 at 4-6. 

 On Friday, September 20, 2013, Oakes submitted his resignation to Metso. 

Doc. 17, ¶ 24. Metso alleges that “contemporaneous with Mr. Oakes’ [resignation], he 

downloaded onto portable USB devices confidential Metso information, that he thereafter 

accessed Metso confidential information on those portable USB devices, and that he 

continues to have at least one of those USB devices in his possession.” Doc. 1, ¶¶ 31-37; 

Doc. 14 at 5. Metso claims that the files Oakes appropriated include “hundreds of 

detailed manufacturing drawings for the HRCs and their components, as well as 

manuals . . . , and several customer quotes and estimating worksheets.” Doc. 14 at 7. 

 Metso seeks a preliminary injunction that: (1) enjoins Oakes from accessing, 

copying, distributing, disclosing, or using, directly or indirectly, through any means 

whatsoever, Metso’s confidential information; (2) enjoins Oakes from accessing, 

copying, distributing, disclosing, or using, directly or indirectly, through any means 

whatsoever, electronic files transferred from the Lenovo Thinkpad T430 laptop, serial 

number 1S2349G5UPB05TEN that Metso issued to Oakes during his employment; 

(3) requires Oakes to identify everyone to whom he has disclosed or otherwise made 

available any Metso confidential information or any of the electronic files obtained from 

his work laptop; (4) orders Oakes to return all confidential information and other 

documents or things belonging to Metso or containing Metso’s confidential information; 

and (5) requires Oakes to make his personal computer and any other device to which any 

Case 2:14-cv-00013-JJT Document 30 Filed 04/23/14 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

of the USB devices were attached available for inspection. Doc. 14 at 1-2. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, Metso must establish that it is likely to 

succeed on the merits, that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in 

the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The 

Ninth Circuit continues to analyze the four elements using a “sliding scale” approach, in 

which “the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger 

showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). An injunction may be granted 

when serious questions going to the merits are raised and the balance of hardships tips 

sharply in the plaintiff’s favor. Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135. 

III. Analysis. 

As stated in his answer to Metso’s amended complaint, Oakes claims that he took 

Metso’s data with him after his termination because he anticipated calls from Metso 

employees with questions concerning projects he was working on prior to his departure 

from Metso. Doc. 24 at 2. In fact, he did receive calls from Metso employees and he 

used Metso’s information in order to provide helpful responses. Id. Oakes reports that 

he has accommodated Metso’s requests for return of its data and has even given Metso’s 

forensic computer expert access to his personal computers. Id. In addition, Oakes claims 

to have discovered a 16 gigabyte PNY thumb drive in his closet, which he promptly 

mailed to Metso. Id. As such, Oakes argues that there is no need for a preliminary 

injunction to afford Metso access to Oakes’ computers. Oakes does not oppose entry of 

an injunction prohibiting him from accessing, copying, or in any way using Metso’s trade 

secret information. Id. at 1. He does, however, object to an injunction requiring him to 

identify everyone to whom he has disclosed or made available Metso’s confidential 

information because he claims that he has not made such information available to anyone 

except those to whom Metso has approved such disclosure. Id. at 3. 

Case 2:14-cv-00013-JJT Document 30 Filed 04/23/14 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

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 

 Metso argues that an injunction is still appropriate because Oakes has not yet 

returned a Staples Relay USB device (the “2005 thumb drive”), which was used to copy 

information from Oakes’ Metso-issued work laptop. Doc. 27 at 2. In addition, Metso’s 

forensic expert analyzed the 16 gigabyte PNY thumb drive returned to Metso and 

discovered that it contained files referencing “HRC” and “hrc pilot.” Id. Those files 

were copied to the thumb drive on October 14, 2013 and November 11, 2013, suggesting 

that Oakes still possesses the files on some other device. Id. Finally, the forensic 

expert’s analysis of the PNY drive revealed that it had not been connected to any of the 

computers that Oakes provided for inspection, suggesting that there is some other device 

onto which Oakes has transferred Metso’s information. Id. 

 A. Likeliness of Success on the Merits. 

 Metso is likely to succeed on the merits of its trade secrets claims. At the very 

least, Metso’s claim raises serious questions that go to the merits. Under the Arizona 

Uniform Trade Secret Act, Metso must prove two elements: (1) the existence of a trade 

secret, and (2) actual or threatened misappropriation. See Calisi v. Unified Fin. Servs., 

LLC, 302 P.3d 628, 631-32 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012); Miller v. Hehlen, 104 P.3d 193, 201 

(Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). The design drawings and other sensitive documents that Oakes 

copied are protectable as trade secret information, and Metso has provided evidence that 

it has taken adequate measures to protect the documents’ secrecy. Doc. 14 at 11. Oakes 

does not dispute that the documents should be accorded trade secret protection. Further, 

the fact that Oakes has failed to account for the whereabouts of the 2005 thumb drive 

suggests that he misappropriated Metso’s trade secrets. 

B. Irreparable Harm. 

 Under Arizona law, “once a protectable interest is established, irreparable injury is 

presumed to follow if the interest is not protected.” Phoenix Orthopaedic Surgeons, Ltd. 

v. Peairs, 790 P.2d 752, 757 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). Oakes does not dispute that 

disclosure of trade secrets would cause irreparable injury. Metso has presented evidence 

tending to prove that Oakes still possesses Metso’s trade secrets months after his 

Case 2:14-cv-00013-JJT Document 30 Filed 04/23/14 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

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 

termination, showing a likelihood of irreparable harm. 

C. Balance of Hardships. 

 The hardship that would be placed on Oakes if the preliminary injunction were 

granted is mild – he would be required to abstain from disclosing Metso’s trade secrets 

and he would be required to return the 2005 thumb drive and submit his computers to 

inspection, which he claims he has already done. Metso would suffer considerable harm 

if the Court refused to grant a preliminary injunction – Metso would lose exclusive 

control over confidential information in which it has invested millions of dollars. The 

balance of hardships tips in Metso’s favor. 

D. Public Interest. 

 Courts have held that the public interest is served by protecting a company’s right 

to proprietary information, business operations, and contractual rights. See Merrill 

Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. McClafferty, 287 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1249 (D. Haw. 

2003). In addition, granting the injunction is consistent with the public policy of 

protecting a company’s interest in its trade secrets and confidential information. See 

Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 481 (1974). 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 14) is 

granted. Upon payment by Plaintiff of a $500 bond, Defendant is enjoined from 

accessing, copying, distributing, disclosing, or using, directly or indirectly, through any 

means whatsoever, Plaintiff’s confidential information. Defendant is also enjoined from 

accessing, copying, distributing, disclosing, or using, directly or indirectly, through any 

means whatsoever, electronic files transferred from the Lenovo Thinkpad T430 laptop, 

serial number 1S2349G5UPB05TEN that Plaintiff issued to Defendant during his 

employment. Within seven days of Plaintiff’s payment of the bond, Defendant must 

identify everyone to whom he has disclosed or otherwise made available any of 

Plaintiff’s confidential information or any of the electronic files obtained from his work 

laptop. Within seven days of Plaintiff’s payment of the bond, Defendant must return all 

confidential information and other documents or things belonging to Plaintiff or 

Case 2:14-cv-00013-JJT Document 30 Filed 04/23/14 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

containing Plaintiff’s confidential information and must make his personal computer and 

any other device to which any of the USB devices were attached, including the 2005 

thumb drive, available for inspection. 

 Dated this 23rd day of April, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00013-JJT Document 30 Filed 04/23/14 Page 6 of 6