## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 17

- 4113

_____________________________

S TEVE N ORTON , an individual,
H USK S IGNS
, I NC
., an Indiana corporation

, and H USK C OMPANIES
, I NC
., an Indiana corporation

,

Appellant s ,

v.

A MERICAN LED T ECHNOLOGY
, I NC
., a Florida c orporation

,

Appellee.

___________________________

O n appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. John T. Brown , Judge

.

April 30, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.

American LED Technology, Inc. (“American”) brou ght suit against former employee Steve Norton, Husk Signs, Inc., and Husk Companies, Inc., making a number of allegations concerning Norton’s departure from American . American moved for a temporary injunction against Norton based on two grounds: 1) violati on of chapter 688, Florida Statutes ( the “ Uniform Trade Secrets Act” or “UTSA” ) and 2) violation of a valid non

- compete agreement

. Following a hearing , the trial court entered an order granting American’s motion based on UTSA, noting that it s findings were “se parate and independent from any breach of2 contract claim” and omitting any other reference to the non

compete agreement. The temporary injunction imposed certain requirements as to the trade secrets then under Norton’s control and prohibited Norton fro m competing with American. We affirm the entry of a temporary injunction without further comment, but reverse the portion of the order enjoining Norton from competing in the industry , a s UTSA does not authorize such relief.

UTSA requires courts to take reasonable steps to preserve the secrecy of trade secrets. § 688.006, Fla. Stat. These steps can include injunctive relief due to actual or threatened misappropriation, and even compelling parties to perform affirmative acts. § 688.003, Fla. Stat. But UTSA may not be used as a vehicle to restrict competition. See Hatfield v. AutoNation,
Inc. , 939 So. 2d 155, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“The statute deals not with restrictive covenan ts and employment by a business’ competition, but with misappropriation.”).

In East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc. , 805 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), the trial court granted injunctive relief

, prohibiting the defendant from using confidential information he improperly obtained and from competing with the plaintiff within the plaintiff ’s operating territory. The Second District Court of Appeal noted that the latter restriction went “beyond enjoining the use of misappropriated trade secrets” and held that, absent a valid non

- compete agreement, the defendant “is free to engage in a compet i ng business.” Id.

American contends that Hatfield , 939 So. 2d at 155, demonstrates that courts do have discretion to restrain competition when granting injunctive relief under UTSA. In Hatfield , the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a n order

gra nting a temporary injunction that “included a brief respite from employment as part of the court’s fashioning a remedy that would aid [the plaintiff] in minimizing the potential damage by disclosure of time sensitive trade secrets.” Id. at 157

- 58.

Here, the trial court’s order prohibited Norton from engaging “in any business in direct competition with American” for the earlier of one year or the conclusion of litigation and contained no geographical limita tions on this prohibition. We do not find one3 year to be a “brief respite,” like the time period in Hatfield

. Further, there was no argument, and we see no evidence, that any trade secrets here are particularly time sensitive. In sum, American may not prohibit Norton from direct competition through the UT SA, and we reverse this portion of the order.

A FFIRMED in part, R EVERSED in part and R EMANDED

.

R AY
, B ILBREY
, and W INOKUR
, JJ., concur

.

_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P . 9.330 or
9.331

.

_____________________________
Colleen Coffield Sachs, Robert Lee Kau f fman, and Michael J. Henry of Dunlap & Shipman, P.A., Santa Rosa

, for Appellant s

.

A. Benjamin Gordon and Darian Zamora of Keefe, Anchors & Gordon, P.A., Fort Walton Be ach , for Appellee

.