### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE N ove m be r 6, 200 3 S es sio n B&L CORPORATI ON v . THOMAS AND THORNGREN, I NC., ET AL 

### .

JAME S EDWARD McCRONE

A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 99-1853-III(II) The Hon orable Carol L. Mc Coy, Chancellor

No. M2002- 02355-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Fe bruary 10, 2004

________________________

P ARTIAL SEPARA TE CONCURRENCE

________________________

I c on c ur fu lly wi th the ma

jority ’s we ll- re a so ne d opin ion e xce pt in one re sp e c t. Th e ma jority conclude s that the evidenc e pre ponderates ag ainst the trial court’s finding that B& L ’s customer information, such a s customer na mes, price s char g ed for service s rende red, c u s tomer contra ct rene wal date s and the identit y of customer repr esenta tives, constituted confide ntial information. I disag ree with the majority ’s re asoning on this iss ue.
Th e ma jo ri tyfi rst cit es Bro db in e’s tes ti mo nyth at t he i den ti tyof cu st om ers cou ld c on c e iva bly be gl ea n ed by

making cold ca lls from the telephone direc tory , as demonstra ting that the na mes of B& L ’s customers w ere “ava ilable to the public.” This strike s me as particula rly unpersua sive. Out of the un ive rs e of po te nti a l cus tom e rs , B& L ha d expe nd e d co ns ide ra ble e ff ort to ide nti fy

a ndob ta in the business of those entities who would pay for B &L ’s servic es. As noted in V enture Express, Inc. v . Z ill y , 973 S.W .2d 602, 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), c onsideration must be g iven to the eff ort and expense of B &L

in developing the list of customers and the difficulty with w hich the information
c ou ld b e du pli c a te d by oth e rs . T o f indthat th is i nf

or ma tio n is “ a va ila

ble to the pu bli c ” be c a us e potential customers a

re i nthe telephone direc tory would mean that no c ustomer lists byany employ er wo uldbe de e me d c on fi de nti a l.

Eq ua lly un pe rs ua siv e is the re a so nin g that th e inf or ma tio n is a va ila

ble to the pu bli c be c a us e customers a

re not prohibited f

rom disclosing the ir business rela tionship with B& L , and bec ause a few customers “ have on oc casion be en willing to reve al themselves upon r equest to do so.” Since-2-

the de fe nd a nts wo uldha ve to kno w wh om to as k in ord e r fo r cu sto me rs to “r e ve a l th e mse lve s, ” thi s likewise does not me an that the list of B& L ’s customers is ava ilable to the public. The tria l court fo u n d t hat the identity

of B &L ’s customers w as conf idential information, and that B &L took
e xten siv e me a su re s to ke e p th e inf or ma tio n c on fi de nti a l. I

a g re e wi th the tr ia l c ou rt ’s a na ly sis

. The other information discussed by the majority , pricing information, contra ct re newa l dates and t h e identity

of customer

repr esenta tives, can be rea dily asce rtained only

if the identity

of the
c us tom e r i s k no wn . T he ma jority state s th a t a lth ou g h it

re c og nize s th a t “ e ff

orts t o r e tr ie ve thi s inf or ma tio n th ro ug h c oldc a lls c a n b e dif fi c ult , ti me c on su min g , a nd of te n unf ru itf ul, we are un able to conclude that this information is confidential simply beca use it can be difficult to obtain.” And y et, t his is ex actly

what the Ve ntu re Ex

pre ss de c isi on state s, that the e ff ort, e xpe ns e a nddif

fi c ult y of de ve lop ing the inf

or ma tio n is we ig he d in to the de te rm inatio n o f w h e th e r i t is de e me d c on fi de nti a l. The trial c ourt relied on this, and I ag ree with the trial court’ s analy sis on this issue.

I n t h e al t er native, the major ity also appe ars to re ly

on the fa ct that the identify of B &L ’s customers wa s “re membere d” informa tion, and since the defe ndants’ noncompete a g ree ments had expired, they

could utiliz e this remembe red information to compete with B &L

. Other information such as pr ices a nd contra ct rene wal dates, could be obtained f rom the customer

once the identity

of t h e c u s t o m erwa s k n o wn
. I agr ee wi t h t h e r es u l tre ac h ed b y t h e m aj o ri t y

b as ed o n t h i s re as o n i n g, bu t I dis a g re e wi th i ts e arl ie r a na ly sis of whe ther the inf or ma tio n w ou ld b e de e me d c on fi de nti a l. Un de r the ma

jority ’s re a so nin g , if the de fe nd a nts we re su bje c t to a no nc omp e te a g reement , this inf or ma tio n w ou ld b e no n- pr ote c tib le a ndthe de fe nd a nts wo uld be fr e e to u se it d e sp ite the dif fi c ult y of fi nd ing c us tom e rs a nd the me a su re s B & L us e d to ke e p th e inf or ma tio n s e c ur e . T his wo uldc le arl y be a wr on g re su lt.
For these re asons, I

concur separ ately

.

________________________________________ H O LL Y M

. K I R B Y , J.