P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 10- 1510

BI M BO BAKERI ES USA, I NC.

v. CH RI S BO T T I CE L L A, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 2- 10- cv- 00194) H onor abl e R

. B ar cl aySur r i ck, D i s tr i ctJ udge

A r gued J une 3, 2010

B E FO R E : SM I T H , FI SH E R , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J ul y27, 2010)2 M i chae l L

. B anks ( ar gued) M o r g a n , Le wi s & Boc k i u s LLP 1701 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t orneyforA ppel l ee E liza b e th K . A in slie J os eph A ncl i en ( ar gued) Sc h n a d e rHarr i s o n Se g a l & Le wi s LLP 1600 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t orney s forA ppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge,

I

. I NT RO DUC T I ON T hi s m att er c o m es on befor e thi s C our ton an i nt er l ocut oryappea l fr om an or dero f the D i s tr i ctC our tdat ed February 9, 2010, and ent er ed on February 12, 2010, g rant i ng appel l ee’ s m ot i on fora pr eli m inaryi nj unct i on. B i m bo B a k e r i e s U S A , I n c . v . B o t t i c e l l a , N o . 1 0

- 0 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 0 WL3 5 7 1 7 7 4 (E .D . P a . F e b . 9 , 2 0 1 0 )

. T h e iss u e o n a p p e a l is w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in e n jo in in g a p p e llan t C h ris B ot t i cel l a, former l ya s eni orexec ut i ve atappel l ee Bi m bo B aker i es U SA , I nc. ( “B i m bo”) , fr om w or ki ng forone of B im b o ’s c o m p e ti to rs u n til a f ter th e C o u rt re so lv e d th e m e rits of B i m bo ’s m i sapprop ri at i on of trade secr et s cl ai m a g a i nst B ot t i cel l a. T he C our ti nt ended that the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w oul d l as tforabouttw o m onths un ti l the tr i al but , beca us e of thi s appea l and a s t ayof th e D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs fol l ow i ng the fi l i ng of thi s app ea l, the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on h a s r e ma i n e d i n e f

f e c t
. F o r th e r e a s o n s we s e tf o r th b e l o w, w e w ill a f

f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.

I I

. BA CK GR OUND A

. B ot t i cel l a’ s E m pl oym entatB i m bo B i m bo, a D el aw ar e corpor at i on w i th i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of b usi ness i n P enn sy l van i a, i s one o f t he fo ur l argest compani es i n the U n i t ed St at es baki ng i ndus try . B i m bo and i t s aff i l i at es pr oduce and di s tr i but e bake d goods thr oughout t he c o u n tr yu n d e ra n u mbe ro f p o p u l a rb r a n d n a me s i n c l udi ng T ho m as’ , E ntenm ann ’s , A rnol d, O row eat , M rs . B ai rd’ s, S tro e h m a n n , an d B o b o li. B o tti c e lla, a C a lifo rn ia r e sid e n t, w ho al r eadyhad expe r i ence in the baki ng i ndus try , began w or ki ng forB i m bo i n 2001 and w as , unt i l J anuary13, 2010, i t s V ice Pre s i dentof O per at i ons forC al i forni a. I n that pos i t i on i n w hi ch B ot t i cel l a ea rned an a nnual s al aryof $250, 000, he w as di r ect lyr es pons i bl e forfi ve pr oduct i on fac i l i t i es and over s aw a var i ety of ar eas i ncl ud ing p roduct4 q u a litya n d c o st, lab o r iss u e s, a n d n e w p r o d u c t d e v e lo p m e n t. I n addi t i on B ot t i cel l a w or ked cl os el yw i th B i m bo’ s s al es s t aff on s a l e s p r o mot i o n a n d c a p a c i ty p l a n n i n g , a n d a l s o w as res po nsi ble for ov ers eei ng the operat i on s of “co-packe rs” in h is re g io n , i. e ., th ird -p a rtym a n u f a c tu r e r s u n d e r c o n tra c t w ith B i m bo. A s one o f B i m bo’ s s eni orexec ut i ves , B ot t i cel l a had acc es s t o and a cq u ir ed a br oad r ange of confi dent i al i nfo rm at i on abo ut B i m bo , i t s produ ct s, and i t s busi ness s tr at egy . Forexampl e, he w as one of a s el ectgr oup of i ndi vi d u als w i th acc es s t o the code books cont ai ni ng the form ulas and process param et ers for a ll of B i m bo ’s produ ct s. H e al s o r egul ar l yatt ended hi gh- leve l m eet i ngs w i th othert op B i m bo execu t i ves t o d i scuss the co m pan y ’s nati on al bu si n ess s tr at egy . Si gni fi cant l y , as B i m bo r epea t edl yhas not ed th ro u g h o u t th e s e p ro c e e d in g s, B o tti c e lla w a s o n e o f o n ly se v e n p e o p le w h o p o ss e ss e d a ll o f th e k n o w led g e n e c e ss a ryto repl i cat e i nd e p e nd entl yB i m bo ’s po pu l ar l i ne o f T ho m as’ E ng l i sh M uff

i ns, i nclud ing the secr etbeh i nd the m uff i ns’ un i qu e “no o k s a nd cranni es” t extur e. T ho m as’ E ng l i sh M u ff ins is th e so u rce o f a p p rox im atelyh alf a b il li o n d o ll ars w o rt h o f B im b o ’s a n n u a l s a le s in c o m e . W hi l e empl oy ed atB i m bo, B ot t i cel la si gned a “C onfi dent i al i ty , N on- Sol i ci t at i on and I nvent i on A s s i gnm ent A gr eement ” w i th B i m b o on M ar ch 13, 2009, i n w hi ch he agr eed nott o compet e di r ect l yw i th B i m bo d ur i ng the t erm of h is e m p l oym ent , nott o us e ordi s cl os e anyof B i m bo’s confi dent i al orpr opr i et aryi nform ati o n dur i ng oraft erthe t e r m of h i s e mpl o yme n twi th Bi mbo , a n d , u p o n c e a s i ng empl oym entbyB i m bo, t o r eturn every documenthe r ece i ved5 fr om B i m bo dur i ng the t erm o f h is e m pl oym ent
. A pp. at214- 18. T he agr eement , how ever , di d noti ncl u d e a covena nt r es tr ic t i ng w her e B ot t i cel l a coul d w or k aft erthe t erm i nat i on of hi s empl oym entw i th B i m bo. T he agr eementcont ai ned a choi ce of

l aw pr ovi s i on pr ovi d ing thatPenns y l vani a l aw w o u ld g o v e rn a n yd isp u te a risin g f ro m th e a g re e m e n t. M or eo v er , the agr eementpr ovi ded thatcert ai n s t at e and fede r al cou rt s i n Penns y l vani a w oul d have j ur i s di ct i on over lit ig a tio n a risin g f

r o m th e a g re e m e n t an d o v e r th e p a rties to th a t li tig a tio n . T h u s, a lt h o u g h th is liti g a tio n se e m s o n ly m ar gi nal l yr el at ed t o Penns y l vani a, B i m bo fi l ed i ti n the U ni t ed S tat es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof P e n n s y lv a n ia , w h ic h h a s e x e rc is e d ju ri s d ic tio n .

B

. T he H os t es s J ob O ffe r O n S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 , o n e o f B im b o ’s prim ary compet i t or s i n t he baki ng i ndustr y

— I nt er s t at es B r and C orporat i on , w h ich l at er chang ed it s nam e t o H ost ess B rands, In c . (co llec tiv e ly , “H o ste ss ” )— o f f e re d B o tti c e lla a p o sitio n in T ex as a s V ice P reside n t o f B ak eryO p era ti o n s fo r i ts eastern r egi on. T he pr opos ed pos i t i on ca rr i ed a ba s e s al aryof $200, 000, al ong w i th var i ous s t ock o p t i on and bonus oppor tuni t i es . O n O ct ober15, 200 9 , B ot t i cel l a ac cept ed the H os t es s pos i t i o n and agr eed t o begi n i n J anuary2010. B ot t icell a di d notdi s cl os e hi s pl ans t o B i m bo fors ever al m o n th s, a n d h e th e re f

o re c o n tin u e d to b e e n g a g e d f u llyin h is w o rk a t B im b o an d to h av e f u ll ac ce ss to B im b o ’s confi dent i al and pr opr i et aryi nform at i on even a ft erhe acc ept ed the H os t es s pos i t i on. B ot t i cel l a mai nt ai ns thatheT he agr eements t at ed: 1
I acknow l edge t h at [H os t es s ] has advi s ed m e th a t itis n o t in te r e s ted in , n o r d o e s it w a n t, any confi dent i al i nform at i on ortr ade s ecr et s or otherpr opr i et aryi nform at i on thatI m ayhave acqui r ed thr o u g h anypr i orempl oym entor bus i nes s r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n c l u d i n g wi thoutl i m i t at i on an yi n f o r ma t i o n o r‘ k n o w- h o w’ r e l a t e d t o t he m an u fa cturing o f T h o m as b ran d p rod u cts
. I f u r th e ra c k n o w l e d g e th a tI h a v e n o tp r e v i o u s l y, and w i l l noti n the futur e, di s cl os e t o H os t es s any confi dent i al or pr opr i et ary i nform at i on bel ongi ng to a n yp re v io u s e m p lo y e r. S p e c i f i c a lly, I a c k n o w led g e th a t H oste ss h a s in stru c ted m e n o t to di s cl os e t o i tort o us e i n the cour s e of anyj ob for i tthatI m aybe [s i c] have at a n yt i m e, any confi dent i al or pr opr i et ary i nform at i on bel ongi ng 6 cont i nued w or ki ng forB i m bo notw i ths t andi ng hi s acc ept ance of th e H o st es s pos i t i on i n or dert o r ece i ve hi s 2009 y ear - end bonus and t o com pl et e tw o B i m bo pr oj ect s forw hi ch he ha d re s p o n s ib ility. A ft er B ott i cel l a accep t ed the H ost ess offer and w h ile B i m bo s t il l empl oy ed hi m , H os t es s di r ect ed hi m t o exec ut e an “A cknow l edgment and Re p r e s e n t a t i o n For m , ” w hi ch es s ent i al l yi ndi cated tha tH os t es s w as noti nt er es t ed i n any co n fid en ti al i n fo rm ati o n , tr ad e se cre ts, o r oth er p rop ri etary i nform at i on t hatB ot t i cel l a had a cqui r ed fr om B i m bo, and that B ott i cel l a w ou l d n ot di scl ose such info rm at i on t o H ost ess. 1t o anypr evi ous empl oy er . I r epr es entthatI have and w i l l no tbri ng t o H ost ess’ [s] w ork place, use f o r th e b e n e f

it o f , o r i n a n yw a ysh a re w ith H o ste s s any confi dent i al o r pro p ri etary inf o rm ati o n b elon g ing to an yp rev iou s em p loy er. I r epr es entthatI am not a partyt o any curr ent l yeff

e c t i v e e mpl o yme n tc o n tr a c t , c o v e n ant n o t to c o m p e te o r o th e r a g re e m e n t th a t co u ld p o te n ti a llyh a v e a n yb e a rin g o n m ya b ili tyto acc eptempl oym entw i th H os t es s , and that H o stess h as i n stru cted m e th at I am n o t t o p erf o rm any act i on, di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y , i n the cour s e of anydut i es orr es pons i bi li ti es thatI m ayhave a t any t i m e fori t , thatw oul d vi ol at e the t erm s of any c u r r e n t l y e f

f e c t i v e c o n tr a c tt o w h i c h I a m a p a r ty. A pp. at272. B ot t i ce l l a as s ert s thathe t es t i fi ed i n hi s depos i t i on thathe 2 advi s ed “hi s bos s ” at B i m bo i n ear l yD ece m berof 2009 “thathe w oul d be l eavi ng” B i m bo. A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at8 n. 1. B uthe i n d icat es thatthi s t es t i m onyw as noti ntr oduced a tthe hea r i ng on the pre l i m i nary i nj unct i on. H e does notcl ai m , how ever , that atthat t i m e he ad vis ed B i m bo that he w as j oini ng H ost ess. 7 A pp. at272. B ot t i cel l a si gned t he for m on D ece m ber7, 2009.

B o tt icell a inf

o rm ed h is sup erv isor at B im b o o n Jan u ary 4, 2010, thathe w as pl anni ng t o l eave B i m bo on J anuary15. 2 B ut B ot t i cel l a di d not at that t i m e i ndi cat e that he w as l eavi ngBe c a u s e Bo t t i c e l l a h a d a c c ru e d e l e v e n we e k s o f v a c a t i o n t i me 3 w i th B i m bo, he r emai ned on the company ’ s payr ol l thr oughout the D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs . Bott i c el l a’ s pr es entempl oym ent s t atus i s notappar entfr om the r ecor d. 8 to w o rk f

o r a c o m p e tito r . M o re o v e r, th e re is n o in d ica tio n in the r ecor d thatB i m bo as ked hi m abouthi s futur e empl oym ent pl an s . On J a n u a r y1 2 , Hos t e s s a n n o u n c e d th a ti t s V i ce Pr es i dentof B akeryO per ati o n s forthe ea s t ern r egi on w as r et i r i ng and thatB ot t i cel l a w oul d be r epl aci ng hi m , eff ect i ve J anuary 18. B i m bo per s onnel l earned of the an n o uncement and t he nextday , J anuary13, the company ’ s V i ce Pr es i dent f o rHu ma n R e l a t i o n s r e q u e s t e d th a tBo t t i c e l l a c o n t a c th i m. B ot t i cel l a di d s o at a p p roxi m at el y10: 00 a. m . PST and i n the c o u rse o f

th e e n su in g tele p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n d isc lo se d h is in ten tio n to w o rk f

o r H o ste s s . B im b o d ire c ted B o tti c e lla to v a c a t e i t s o f

f i c e s th a td a y. 3

C

. B ot t i cel l a’ s U s e of Confi dent i al I nform at i on Fol l ow i ng the H os t es s O ffe r I n the per i od betw een w hen B ot t i cel l a ac cept ed the H os t es s offe r on O ct ober 15, 2009, and w hen he ce ased w or ki ng forB i m bo on J anuary13, 201 0 , h e cont i nued t o have all the ac ce ss t o B im b o ’s co n fid en ti al a n d p rop ri etary i nform at i on befi t t i ng a trus t ed s eni orexec ut i ve. Fori n stan ce, B ot t i cel l a att ended a m eet i ng w i th B i m bo’ s presidentand otherB i m bo offi cer s i n D ece m ber2009 at w h i ch the parti ci pant s di s cus s ed conf i dent i al i nform at i on r egar di ng theW e ar e qui te uncert ai n as t o how an i ndi vi dual can bl ock out 4 i nform at i on fr om hi s head for a hum an m i nd does notfunct i on l i ke a co m pu t er fr om w hich, thro u g h a n el ect roni c process, m at er i al s m aybe del et ed. 9 co m pany ’ s s tr at egi c pl an forC al i forni a. B ot t i cel l a conc edes that i f he h ad d i scl osed h i s inte n t i on t o w ork fo r H ost ess, B i m bo w oul d have r es tr ict ed hi s acc es s t o thi s and othertypes of i nform at i on. I ndeed, B ot t i cel l a mai n tai ns thathe no l onger fel t“comfor t abl e” be i ng pr i vy t o B i m bo’ s confi dent i al i nform at i on fo l l ow i ng hi s acc ept ance of the H os t es s offe rand th a t, a c c o rd in g ly , w h e n h e re c e iv e d e m a ils a n d e lec tro n ic document s co n t ai ni ng confi dent i al i nform at i on, he del et ed them, and thatw hen he w as expos ed t o confi dent ia l in f o rm a tio n d u rin g p re s e n ta tio n s a t m e e tin g s, h e “ b lo c k e d it” outof hi s head. A pp. at195, 197. 4
I n o n e in sta n c e o v e r th e C h ristm a s h o lid a y , B o tti c e lla del et ed a num ber of document s fr om hi s co m p any - i s s ued l apt op comp u t er . T hes e document s i ncl uded both i t ems of a per s onal natur e, s u ch as hi s r es um e, and a numberof w or kr el at ed docum ent s cont ai ni ng confi dent i al i nform at i on. B ot t i cel l a cl ai m ed thathe del et ed thes e doc u m en t s beca us e he

“ d id n ’t th in k th [ e y ] w o u ld [ h a v e ] a n yv a lu e to a n yb o d y .” A p p . at 1 9 8 . N e v e rth e les s, w h e n B o tti c e lla re tu rn e d to h is offi ce at B i m bo on J anuary 4, 2010, he as k ed a c om put er t echni ci an t o restore the fi l es beca us e “he w ant ed t o have t hem b a c k j u s t i n c a s e f o r th e n e x t wee k s we n e e d e d t o have a m eet i ng or s om ethi ng. ” A pp. at 198. B i m bo’ s te chni ci an then restore d the f

il es to the c o m p u ter.B ot t i cel l a does not denythathe w as the per s on l oggi ng i n under 5 hi s name. 10 Fol l ow i ng B ot t i cel l a’ s departur e, B i m bo hi r ed E. B r i an H arris, a c o m p u ter fo ren sics ex p ert, to inv esti g ate B o tt icell a’s u se of hi s companyl apt op dur i ng D ece m ber2009 and J anuary2010. H arri s’s t es t i ng r evea l ed thata us erw ho l ogged i n as B o t t i cel l a had a cce s s ed a numberof conf i dent i al document s dur i ng the fi nal w eeks of B ot t i cel l a’ s empl oym ent atB i m bo. I n part i cul ar , the t es t i ng r evea l ed thatthe per s on l oggi ng i n as B ot t i cel l a had a cce s s ed tw el ve fi l es w i thi n a span o f t hirt een seco nd s on Janu a ry13 , 20 10 , B ott i cel l a’s l ast dayatB i m bo. Si gni fi cantl ythi s acc es s occurr ed mi nut es 5 a f ter th e p h o n e c a ll i n w h ich B o tti c e lla f in a llyd isc lo se d to B im b o hi s plans t o w ork for H ost ess and B i m bo t old h im to c e a s e w o rk in g f

o r i t. T her e w er e s ever al s i m i l arpatt erns of ac ces s i n the w e e k s le a d in g u p to J a n u a r y 1 3 . A c c o rd in g to H a rris, th is type o f act i vity

— m ult i ple fi l es bei ng accessed m ore or l ess s i mul t a n e o u s l y

— was “ i n c o n s i s t e n twi th a n o r d i n a ryu s age w h e re b yin d iv id u a l f

ile s a re o p e n e d a n d e ith e r re a d o r e d ite d .” A p p . at 23 8

. H arris co n clud ed th a t th e a cti v ityw as, ho w ev er, cons i s t entw i th copy i ng a gr oup o f fi l es atthe s ame t i m e, but he coul d notdet erm i ne conc lusivel yw hetherthe fi l es B ot t i cel l a had a cce s sed had bee n copi ed and de l et ed ornever copi ed atal l

. A pp. at2 3 8

. T h e t es t i ng al s o r evea l ed that thre e external s t orage d evices

— a po rt able device kno w n as a “thum b” or “fl as h” dr i ve and tw o ext ernal har d dr i ves

— had at o n e ti m e o r an o ther b ee n co n n ec ted to B o tt icell a’s c o m p u ter, al though i tw as uncl ear exac t l yw hen thes e devi ces had bee n11 u sed

. B im b o loca ted th e thu m b d ri v e a n d o n e o f th e h ard dr ives b utH arr i s coul d notdet erm i ne conc l us i vel yw hetheror nota n yf

i l e s h a d b e e n c o p i e d o n t o th e d e v i c e s fr om B ot t i cel l a’ s computer. H arr i s w as notpr ovi ded w i th the s econd e xt ernal har d dr i ve. A ccor di ng t o B i m bo, thatdevi ce “i s unacc ount ed for

. ” A ppel l ee’ s br

. at11. A num berof the fi les acc es s ed fr om B ot t i cel l a’ s l apt op d u rin g h is f

in a l d a y s a t B im b o w e re h ig h lyse n sitiv e a n d th e ir p o ss e s s io n b ya c o m p e tit o r w o u ld h a v e b e e n d a m a g in g to B im b o . A s d e sc rib e d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt, th e se d o c u m e n ts i ncl ude “Bi m bo’ s cos t
- r educt i on s tr at egi es , pr oductl aunch dat es , ant i ci pat ed pl antand l i ne cl os ur es , l aborcon tr act i nform at i on, pr oduct i on s tr engths and w eakne s s es of m any B im b o b a k e rie s, a n d th e c o st s tr u c tu re f o r in d iv id u a l p ro d u c ts b yb ran d

. ” B im b o B ak eries, 20 1 0 W L 5 7 1 7 7 4 , at *7

. T h ere w ere, ho w ever, m ore m un dan e d ocu m ents such as a p re se n tatio n title d “ S a f e tyS h o rt - W e t F lo o rs” in c lu d e d in thes e gr oups of fi l es . A pp. at237. In hi s vi deo- t aped depos i t i on, por t i ons o f w hi ch w er e pr es ent ed atthe pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on hear i ng, B o tt i cel l a admi t t ed t o copy i ng fi l es per i odi cal l y fr om hi s l apt op t o ext ernal devi ces d ur i ng his fi nal w eeks atB im bo , bu tm ai ntai ned that he had do ne so onl yt o prac ti ce hi s comput ers ki l l s i n pr epar at i on forhi s new p o sitio n a t H o ste ss . D e sp ite a n e a r lier d e n ial, h e e v e n tu a lly ad m itted to co n d u cti n g su ch “p rac ti ce ” e x erc ises in Ja n u ary 2010. T h e D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatB ot t i cel l a’ s expl anat i on of hi s us e of the l apt op comput eran d the ext ernal devi ces w as “conf us i ng atbes t ” and “not cr edi bl e. ” B i m bo B aker i es , 2010 W L 571774, at*6.12 D

. P roc ed u ral H ist o ry A ft erB ot t i cel l a l eftB i m bo and j oi ned H os t es s , B i m bo br ought thi s act i on s eeki ng t o pr ot ecti t s tr ade s ecr et s and then pr om pt l ym oved forpr el i m i naryi nj unct i ve r el i ef. T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on B i m bo’ s m oti o n atw hi ch B i m bo pr es ent ed port i ons of B ot t i cel l a’ s vi deo t aped depos i t i on as w el l as l i ve t es t i m onyfr om H arr i s and D ani el B abi n, one of B i m bo’ s s eni or exec ut i ves . B ot t i cel l a’ s couns el cr os s - exami ned B i m bo’ s w i tnes s es butd id notpr es entany evi dence on B ot t i cel l a’ s beh alf. The D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed B i m bo’ s m ot i on and pr el i m i nar i l yenj oi ned B ot t i cel l a fr om c o m m e n c in g e m p lo ym e n t w ith H o ste ss a n d f ro m d iv u lg in g to H os t es s anyconfi dent i al orpr opri etar yi nform at i on bel ongi ng to B im b o . T h e C o u rt f u rth e r o rd e re d B o tti c e lla to re tu rn to B im b o an yo f th e c o m p an y ’s co n fid en ti al or p rop rietary i nform at i on i n hi s possess i on. T he C our ti s s ued the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on on February9, 2010, and pr ovi ded that it w a s to re m a in in e f

f e c t u n til a d e ter m in a tio n o n th e m e rits o f th e c o n tro v e rsy at a trial , w h ich th e C o u rt sc h e d u led to begi n on A pr i l 12, 2010. N everthel ess, not w i ths t andi ng the ear l ytr i al d ate, B ot t i cel l a appe al ed fr om the February9, 2010 or dert o thi s C our ton February16, 2010. T he ca s e r emai ns untr i ed and pe ndi ng i n the D ist ri ct C our tas thatC our ton M arch 5, 20 10 , aft er a conferen c e w i th the at t orney s, pos tponed the tr i al and s t ay ed al l pr ocee di ngs u n ti l i t s fur ther o rd e r. W e h a v e e x p e d ited o u r c o n sid e ra tio n o f th is a p p e a l.

I I I

. J UR I SDI CTI ON AN D STA ND AR D O F REVI EWB im b o is a citize n o f D e law a re a n d P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d B o tti c e lla 6 i s a ci t i zen of

C al i forni a. 13 T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r th is d iv e rsity o f c i t i z e n s h i p a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 3 2 ( a )

. We 6 exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overB ot t i cel l a’ s i nt er l ocut o ryappea l pur s uantt o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1292( a) ( 1)

. W hen r evi ew i ng a di s tr i ctcou r t ’ s gr antof a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, w e r evi ew the court ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctforcl earerr or , i t s con cl us i ons of l aw de novo, and the ul t i m at e dec i s ion gr ant i ng the pr el i m i naryi nj uncti o n foran abus e of di s cr et i on. M i l l erv. M i t chel l , 598 F. 3d 139, 145 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( ci t i ng M cTer nan v . C ity o f

Y o rk , 5 7 7 F .3 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ))

.

I V. DI S CU S S I ON In d e te rm ining w h ethe r t o g ran t a pre li m inary i nj unct i on , a courtm us tcons i derw hetherthe partys eeki ng the i nj uncti o n h as s at i s fi ed fourfac t or s : “( 1) a l i kel i hood of su c c e s s o n th e m e rits; (2 ) h e o r sh e w ill su f f e r irre p a ra b le harm i f the i nj unct i on i s deni ed; ( 3) gr ant i ng r el i ef w i l l not r es ul ti n even gr eat erharm t o the no n m ovi ng party ; and ( 4) the publ i c i nt er es tfavor s s uch r el i ef. ” M i l ler, 598 F. 3d at147 ( ci t i n g Chi l d Ev a n g e l i s m F e l l o ws h i p o f New J e r s e y I n c . v. S taff o rd T w p . S ch

. D ist

. , 3 8 6 F

. 3 d 5 1 4 , 5 2 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 )). W e turn fi r s tt o the ques t i on of w hether B im b o has d em o n str ated a li k eli h o o d o f su cc e ss o n the m erit s, an inq u iry thatw as the pri m aryfocus of the D i s tr i ctC our t , and,14 c o n se q u e n tly , als o is th e p rim a ryf o c u s o f th e p a rties o n th is a p p e a l.

A

. L ik e lih o o d o f S u c c e ss o n th e M e rits T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t B im b o w a s l ik e lyto p re v a il o n th e m e rits o f its m isa p p ro p ria tio n o f tra d e se c re ts cl ai m . U nderthe Penns y l vani a U n ifo r m T r ade Sec r et s A ct (“ P U T S A ” ), w h ich is a p p lica b le in th is c a se , a tra d e se c re t is d e f in e d a s: I nform at i on, i ncl udi ng a form ul a, dr aw i ng, p a ttern , co m p ilatio n in c lu d in g a c u sto m e r list, program , dev i ce, m et ho d, t echn i qu e or process th a t: ( 1) D er i ves i ndepende nt econom i c val ue, actual o r pot ent i al , fr om notbei ng gener al l yknow n t o, and notbei ng r e a d i l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e b y p r o p e rm e a n s b y, o th e r p e rso n s w h o c a n o b tain e c o n o m ic v a lu e f ro m its d is c lo s u re o r u s e . (2) Is the su b

ject of ef fo rts th a t are re a so n a b le u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s to m a in ta in its s e c re c y .“The PU T SA di s pl ace d Penns y l vani a’ s com m o n la w t or tfor 7 m i s appr opr i at i on of tr ade s ecr et s , butther e i s no i ndi cat i on that the s t atut e ef

fec t ed a s ubs t ant i ve s hi fti n the def i ni t i on of ‘ tr ade s ecr et
. ’ ” Y out i e v. M acy ’ s R et ai l H ol di ng, I nc. , 626 F. Supp. 2d 5 1 1 , 5 2 2 n . 1 0 (E

. D

. P a. 20 0 9 ). 15 12 Pa

. Con s . St a t
. Ann

. § 5 3 0 2 ( W e s t 2 0 0 4 ) ; s e e a l s o R ohm a n d H a a s C o . v . L in , 9 9 2 A .2 d 1 3 2 , 1 4 3 n .4 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2010) ( “A tr ade s ecr etm aycons i s tof anyform ul a, patt ern, d ev ice o r co m p il ati o n o f in fo rm ati o n w h ich is u sed in o n e’s bus i nes s , and w hi ch gi ves hi m an opportuni tyt o obt ai n an advant age over compet i t or s w ho do not know o r use i t
. ”) (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ). T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia c o u rts lo o k to th e f o llo w in g f

a c to rs to d e ter m in e w h e th e r in f o rm a tio n is pr ot ect ed as a tr ade s ecr et : ( 1) the ext entt o w hi ch the i nform at i on i s know n ou t s i de of the company ’ s bus i nes s ; ( 2) the ext ent t o w hi ch the i nform at i on i s kno w n b yempl oy ees and other s i nvol ved i n the c o m p an y ’ s bus i nes s ; ( 3) the ext ent of the meas ur es t aken bythe company to g u ard t he s ecr ecyof the i nform at i on; ( 4) the val ue of the i nform at i on t o the companyand i t s compet i t or s ; ( 5) the amounto f eff or tor m oneythe companysp enti n devel opi ng the i nform at i on; and ( 6) the ea s e ordi ffi cul tyw i th w h i ch the i nform at i on coul d be acqui r ed ordupl i cat ed l egit i m at el ybyother s . C rum v. 7 B r i dges t one/ Fi r es t one N or th A m er i can Tir e, LL C , 907 A

. 2d 5 7 8 , 5 8 5 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2 0 0 6 ). A p p ly ing the se stan d ard s, the D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned thatdur i ng B ot t i cel l a’ s empl oym entatB i m bo, he had access t o an d acq uir ed a n um ber of B i m bo ’s trade secr et s, i ncl udi ng:16 a . In f o rm a tio n in B im b o ’s c o d e b o o k s, a s w e ll as and i ncl udi ng fo rm ul as and des i gns for T hom as ’ E ngl i s h M uffi ns , O r ow eatbr and pr odu ct s , Sandw i ch Thi ns pr oduct s , and other B i m bo produ ct s. b

. B i m b o ’ s s tr a t e g y f

o ri n c r e a s i n g p r o f

i t a b i l i ty, embodi ed i n a r oad m ap in Ja nuaryof 2009, w hich i ncluded l i n e c l osures, plantcl osures, n e w p ro c e ss im p ro v e m e n ts, fo rm u la opt i mi z a t i o n s , a n d n e w pr o d u c tl a u n c h e s , a nd w hi ch ac hi eved c os ts avi ngs of $75 m i l l i on over the c o u rse o f a y ea r.
c. K now l edge of

how B imbo pr oduces br ead

‘ fr om s cr at ch’ i ns t ead of us i ng pr e-m ixe d i ng redi ents
. d . D o c u m e n ts c o p ied b y[ B o tti c e lla] f ro m h is work c o mpu t e ro n t o a n e x t e rn a l s t o r a g e d e v i ce w ith n o c re d ib le e x p la n a tio n . . . . e . Bi mbo ’ s p r o mot i o n a l s tr a t e g i e s wi th r e s p e ct t o specifi c cust om ers . f. B i m bo ’s costpo si t i on s. g . I d e n t i t i e s o f

Bi mbo ’ s c u s t o me r s t a r g e t e d for up com i ng bids.
B i m bo B aker i es , 2010 W L 57177 4 , at*10. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt th e n d e ter m in e d th a t B im b o lik e ly w o u ld b e a b le to17 pr ove attr i al thatB ot t i cel l a w oul d m i s appr o pr i at e thes e tr ade secr et s i f al l ow ed to w ork atH ost ess. A per s on has m i s appr opr i at ed a tr ade s ecr etunder P en n sy lvan ia l aw w h en h e a cq u ir es k n o w ledg e o f a n o ther’s tra d e se c re t in c irc u m sta n c e s g iv in g r is e to a d u tyto m a in tain i t s confi dent i al i tyand then di s cl os es orus es th at trad e s ecr et w i thoutthe othe r ’ s cons ent
. 12 Pa. C ons . St at
. A nn. § 5302 ( W es t2004)

. A court m ayenj oi n the ac tual orthr eat ened m i s appr opr i at i on of a tr ade sec r et
. I d. § 5303( a)

. A ft er det erm ining thatB i m bo w as s eeki ng an i nj unct i on on the bas i s of thr eat ened mi s appr opr i at i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tfound ther e w as “a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood, if n o t a n i nevi t abi l i ty , that [B ot t i cel l a] w i l l di s cl os e orus e B i m bo’ s tr ade s ecr et s i n the cou rs e of hi s em ploym ent w i th H ost ess. ” B i m b o B a keri es, 2 0 1 0 W L 5 7 1 7 7 5 , at ** 1 1 -14

. A cc o rd in g ly, the C o u rt concl uded thatB i m bo had demonstr at ed a l ikeli hood of s u c c e e d i n g o n th e me r i t s o f i t s c l a i m. B ott i cel l a con t en d s thi s conclusi on w as w rong as a ma t t e r o f l a w b e c a u s e ( a ) a c o u r t o n l y c a n e n j o i n a def

endant f ro m b e g inn ing a n ew job to p rotec t a fo rm er e m p loy er’s t echni cal trad e sec r et s , ( b) s uch an i nj unct i on onl ycan i s s ue w h e re it w o u ld b e “ v irtu a lly im p o ss ib le” f o r th e d e f

e n d a n t to per form hi s new j o b w i thoutdi s cl os i ng tr ade s ecr et s , ( c) B i m bo di d notpr es entanyevi dence fr om w hi ch t he D i s tr i ct C our tcoul d concl ude thatB ot t i cel l a’ s r es pons i bi l i t i es at H os t es s w oul d l ead hi m t o di s cl os e B i m bo’ s tr ade s ecr et s , and ( d) the D i s tr i ct C our t dr ew i m perm i s s i bl e adver se in fer ence s agai ns tB ot t i cel l a i n a w aythateff ect i vel ys hi ft ed the bur den of pr oof fr om B i m bo t o B ot t i cel l a.18 1

. A irP rod u cts an d Ine v it ab le D iscl o su re T he p art i es di sagree abou tthe c irc um st ances t hat m ust be fo u n d to exi s tbefor e a c our tcan e nj oi n a def endantfr om begi nni ng new empl oym ent
. I n i t s opi ni on gr ant i ng the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, the D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed: W hen ana l y zi ng thr eat ened mi s appr opr i at i on of t r a d e s e c r e t s , Pe n n s y l v a n i a c o u r t s a p p l ythe

‘ i nevi t abl e di s cl os ur e doctr i ne. ’ T h atdoctr i ne es s ent i al l ypos i t s that‘ a per s on m aybe enj oi ned f ro m e n g a g in g in e m p lo ym e n t o r c e rta in a sp e c ts o f h is e m p lo ym e n t w h e re th a t em p lo ym e n t is l i kel yt o r es ul ti n the di s cl os ur e of i nform at i on, hel d s ecr etbya form erempl oy er , of w hi ch the e m p lo y e e g a in e d k n o w led g e a s a re s u lt o f h is form erempl oym ents i tuat i on . [’] T he s cope of t he i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

d e p e n d s o n th e p a r t i c ul ar c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th e c a s e . B im b o B a k e rie s, 2 0 1 0 W L 5 7 1 7 7 4 , a t * 1 1 (c iti n g V icta u lic C o. v. T i eman, 499 F. 3d 227, 234 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( om i t t i ng ci t at i ons ) ; A i rPr ods

. & C hems. , I nc. v . Jo h ns on, 442 A

. 2d 1114 , 1120 ( Pa. Super

. C t
. 1982) )

. I n otherw or ds , the D i s tri ct C our tconcl uded, al bei ts om ew hatpar adoxi cal l y , that Penns y l vani a court s appl ythe “i nevi t abl e di s cl os ur e doctr i ne” to g ra n t in

ju n c tio n s b a se d n o t o n a tra d e se c re t’s in e v itab le di s cl os ur e buton i t s l i kel ydi s cl osur e. C f. Peps i co, I nc. v. R edmond, 54 F. 3d 1262, 1269 ( 7th C i r . 1995 ) (“[a] pl ai nt i ff m aypr ove a c l ai m of tr ade s ecr etm i s appr opr i at i on byW hi l e court s acr os s the countryhave c ons i der ed the 8 appl i cabi l i tyand s cope of the i nevi t abl e di s cl os ur e doctr i ne, s ee gener al l yB r andyL

. T r eadw ay , A n O vervi ew of I ndi vi dual St at es ’ A ppl i cat i on of Ine vi t abl e D i s cl os ur e: C oncr et e D octr i ne orE qui t abl e Tool ?, 55 S M U L

. R ev. 621, 626- 49 ( 2002) , our focus i n thi s di versit y ac t i on i s on the dec i s i ons of the P enn sy l van i a cou rt s.

“‘ O n- s i t e’ gas s erves l ar ge i ndus tr i al cus t om er s . G as i s pi ped 9 t o t he cus t om er . ” A i rPr ods

. , 442 A

. 2d at1116. 19 d e m o n stra tin g th a t d e f e n d a n t’s n e w e m p lo ym e n t w ill i nevi t abl yl ead hi m t o r el yon the pl ai nt i ff ’s trade s ecr et s . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). W h il e w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt thatPenns y l vania l aw empow er s a courtt o enj oi n the thr eat ened di s cl os ur e of tr ade s ecr et s w i tho utr equi r i ng a pl ai nt i ff t o s how thatdi s cl os ur e i s i nevi t abl e, w e do not cons i dert hatan i nj unct i on gr ant ed abs ents uch a s how i ng w as i s s ued pur s uantt o t he “i nevi t abl e di s cl os ur e doctr i ne. ” T he l eadi ng Penns y l vania deci s i on t o di s cus s the i nev i t abil i tyof tr ade secretdis clo sure i s A i r Produc t s & C h e m ic a ls , In c . v . J o h n s o n . In th a t c a s e A i r P ro d u c ts , a 8 m anufa ctur erand di s tr i but o r o f i ndus tr i al gas , s oughtan or der e n jo in in g Jo h n so n , o n e o f its f o rm e r e m p lo y e e s w h o p rim a rily w as r es pons i bl e fors el l i ng on- s i t e gas , fr om w o rki ng i n the on- s i t e gas di vi s i on of a c om pet i t or , L iqui d A i r , thatl agged behi nd A i rPr oduct s i n the on- s i t e gas m arket

. 442 A

. 2d at 9 1116- 18. T he tr i al court det erm i ned that J ohns on, w ho had an engi neer i ng backgr ound, had ac qui r ed a number of t echni cal an d c o mme r c i a l tr a d e s e c r e t s r e l e v a n t t o th e o p e r a t i on and20 s al e of on- s i t e gas dur i ng hi s empl oym ent at A i rPr oduct s , and th a t an in ju n c tio n p ro h ib iti n g Jo h n so n f ro m w o rk in g in o n -site s al es at L iqui d A i rw as nece s s arybeca us e “[ i ] tw oul d be i m pos s i bl e [f

orJ ohns on] t o per form hi s m anage r i al funct i ons i n on- s i t e w or k w i thoutdr aw i ng on the know l edge he pos s es s es of A i rPr oduct [s ] ’ s confi dent i al i nform at ion. ” I d. at 1 1 2 2 (q u o tin g tr ia l c o u rt o p in io n ). O n a p p e a l, th e S u p e rio r C o u rt a f f irm e d , ag re e in g w ith the tr i al courtthatJ ohns on pos s es s ed tr ade s ecr et s bel ongi ng t o A i rPr oduct s thati ncl uded t echno log ic al i nnovat i ons as w el l as comm er ci al i nform at i on s uch as “the s t atus of negot i at i ons w i th cus t om er s , pr opos ed pl antconfi gurati ons and met hods of del i veryas w el l as anal y sis of m arket o p p o rtu n it ies. ” Id

. at 1 1 2 1 (q u o ti n g tr ial co u rto p inion ). In r eac hi ng thi s concl us i on, the C our temphasi zed that“tr ade s ecr et s need notbe t echni cal in n at ur e” t o be pr ot ect ed under P enn sy l van i a l aw . Id. at11 24 (ci t in g M acbeth-Ev ans G l ass C o . v . S c h n e lb a c h , 8 6 A . 6 8 8 (P a . 1 9 1 3 ))

. W ith re sp e c t to th e p ro b a b ili ty o f d isc lo su re re q u ire d to w arr antan i nj unct i on, the Super i orC our ts t at ed atthe out s et of i t s a n a l y s i s th a t Pe n n s y l v a n i a l a w p e r mi t s th e i s s u a nce of a n in ju n c tio n w h e re a d e f

e n d a n t’s n e w e m p lo ym e n t “is lik e ly t o r es ul ti n the discl os ur e” of a form erempl oy er ’ s tr ade s ecr et s . I d. at1120 ( emphasi s added)

. T he C our tthen det erm i ned thati tw as r eas onabl e for the tr i al courtt o i s s ue an in ju n c tio n b a se d o n th e in e v itab ili tyth a t Jo h n so n w o u ld disc lo se trade secr et s, bu tthe S up eri or C ou rtexp l i ci t l ycho se “not[t o] adoptthe r eas oni ng of the tr ial co u rt ori t s us e of the ter m in e v itab le .” Id . at 1 1 2 4 . B a se d o n th e se sta tem e n ts it s eems c l earthatt he Super i orC our tbel i eved that the tr i al21 c o u rt p e rm iss ib lyc o u ld h a v e g ra n ted th e in ju n c tio n e v e n if the di s cl os ur e of tr ade s ecr et s w as noti nevi t abl e.

2. Pr ot ect i on forN on- T echni cal T rade S e c re ts B ot t i cel l a ar gues that“[w ]hi l e conf i dent i al i nform at i on conce r ni ng ei thert echni cal orcomm er ci al i s s ues can be pr ot ect ed as a tr ade s ecr et , the i nevi t abl e di s cl os ur e doctr i ne, w h ich p re v e n ts th e d e f e n d a n t f ro m tak in g o n e m p lo ym e n t in h is c h o s e n f

ie ld , a p p lie s o n ly to te c h n ic a l t r a d e s e c re ts .” A ppel l ant s br

. at28 ( ci t i ng I r on A ge C orp. v. D vor ak, 880 A

. 2d 657, 6 6 5 (Pa. Super

. C t
. 2005) ; O ber g I ndus

. , I nc. v. Fi nney , 555 A

. 2d 1324, 1327 ( Pa. Super

. C t
. 1989) )

. O ur r evi ew of the re levantdeci s i onal l aw l eads us t o r ej ect B ot t i cel l a’ s pr opos ed di s t i nct i on betw een t echni cal and other i nfor m at i o n . To s t a r twi th , i ti s c l e a rth a t“ tr a d e s e c r e t s n eed notbe t echni cal i n natur e” t o b e p rotec t ed ful l yby Penns y l vani a l aw , A i r Pr ods

. , 442 A

. 2d at1124; s ee a l s o D enT al

- E z, I nc. v. Si emens Capi t al C orp. , 566 A

. 2d 1214, 1228 ( Pa. Super

. C t. 1989) ( en banc ) ( “[T] he part i cul archar act erof t he i n f o r ma t i o n i s n o t r e l e v a n t
. . . . [ I t ] ma y c o n s i s t of com p i l at i ons of pur el ycomm er ci al i nform at i on. ”) ( ci t i ng M or gan’ s H om e Equi p. C orp. v . M artucci , 136 A

. 2d 838 ( Pa. 1 957) )

. Fur therm or e, court s appl y i ng Penns y l vani a l aw are empow er ed t o enj oi n both the act u al and the thr eat ened m is a p p ro p r ia tio n o f

tr a d e s e c re ts . 1 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. A n n . § 5303( a) ( W est 2004)

. A n i nj unct i on agai ns templ oym ent th e re f o re is s im p lyo n e w e a p o n in a n e q u ityc o u rt’s a rse n a l to preven tthe thr eat ened m i sapprop ri a ti on of tr ade secret s,22 r egar dl es s of thos e s ecr et s’ techni cal ornon- t echni cal c h a ra c te r. I n ar gui ng t hata courtonl ym ayenj oi n a def endant fro m b eg inn ing a n ew job to p ro te c t a f o rm er e m p loy er’s t echn i cal trade secr et s, B ott i cel l a rel i es pri m ari l y on tw o o p in io n s o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt a p p ly in g A ir P rod u cts. In O b erg Ind u str ies, In c . v . F inn ey , the tri al co u rt had enj oi ned the gene r al sales m anage rof a c om panythat m anufa ctur ed ca rbi de s t amp ing di es fr om w or ki ng forone of that co m p an y ’s co m p eti tors. 5 5 5 A

. 2 d at 1 3 2 5

. T h e c o u rt bel i eved the empl oy ee, Fi nney , inevi t abl yw oul d di s cl os e the tra d e se c re ts o f

h is f o rm e r e m p lo y e r, O b e rg In d u stri e s, if al l ow ed t o w or k i n the new pos i t i on. I d. at 1326. T he i nform at i on the tr i al cour tcl as s i fi ed as tr ade s ecr et s cons i s t ed of cus t om eri nform at i on r eport s , i ncl udi ng a mast ercus t om er di r ect ory and hi s t or i es of quot ed pr i ces and compl et ed sa le s f o r v a ri o u s c u s to m e rs . Id . a t 1 3 2 5

. O n a p p e a l th e S u p e r io r C o u rt d id n o t cle a rlysta te w h e th e r o r n o t itc o n sid e re d th is in f o rm a tio n to c o n stitu te tr ad e se cre ts un d er P en n sy lvan ia law

. N ev erthe less, the C o u rt va c a t e d th e i n

j u n c t i o n b e c a u s e ( 1 ) th e c a s e d i d n o t i n v ol ve a r es tr i c t i v e c o v e n a n t , ( 2 ) th e r e was n o e v i d e n c e th a tFi nney t ook O ber g’ s confi dent i al i nform at i on t o us e in hi s new pos i t i on, ( 3) s om e of t he confi dent i al r eport s at i s s ue, “s uch as the li stof cu st om ers and th e i r cont actpersons, w ere s o v o lu m in o u s th a t th e yc o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n c o m m itt e d to m emory , ” and ( 4) Fi nn ey ’s pos i t i on atO ber g and the know l edge he obt ai ned w hi l e in thatpos i t i on di d not demonstr at e an i nevi t abi l i tyof di s cl os ur e compar abl e t o that found i n A i rPr oduct s . Id. at1327. W i th r es pectt o the l att er23 p o int, the C our topi ned thatthe foc us of A i rPr oduct s w as on the empl oy ee’ s “engi neer i ng backgr o u n d and the s peci al k n o w ledg e h e p o sses sed relati n g to a m etho d o f o il rec o v ery noty etdevel oped bythe c o m pet i t orcompany , ” des pi t e the c ir c u m sta n c e th a t th e e m p lo y e e , li k e F in n e y , w a s in v o lv e d in s al es . I d. at1327. I n I r on A ge C orp. v. D vor ak, both the tr ial courtand the Super i orC our t r efus ed t o enj oi n a form erdi s tr i cts al es m anage rof a f

ootw earm an u factur erfr om us i ng orcont act i ng anyof the company ’ s curr ento rpr os pect i ve cus t om er s . 880 A

. 2d 567. T he empl oy ee, D vor ak, had leftthe company , I r on A ge, to w o rk fora compet i t or . I d. at661. T he Super i or C ou rtaffirm ed the den i al of the re q uest ed inj un ct i on becau se the tr i al courtr eas onabl yconcl uded thatthe inf or m at i on at iss u e

— Ir o n A g e ’ s c u s to m e r li s ts

— w a s “ a v a ilab le to compet i t ors th rough l egi t i m at e means and ca nnotbe dec l ar ed a t rade secr et
. ” Id . a t 664

. T he C ou rtw ent on t o d i st i ng uis h A ir P ro d u c ts o n th e g ro u n d th a t: In A i rPr oduct s , the empl oy ee pos s es s ed inti m ate k n o w ledg e o f h is fo rm er e m p loy er’s r es ear ch and de vel opm entdat a foron- s i t e gas del i very t echnol ogi es . T he empl oy ee’ s n ew empl oy erw as att empt i ng t o devel op simi l ar tec h n o lo g ies , an d th e e m p lo y e e w a s h ire d to pr ovi de r es ear ch and de vel opm entdat a obt ai ned thr ough hi s pr evi ous empl oym ent
. I n the i ns t ant cas e, [D vor ak] pos s es s es no s uch t echni cal know l edge, and [hi s ] n ew empl oy eral r eadyhas an ext ens i ve cus t om erbas e. [D vor ak] w as not24 hi r ed t o pr ovi de i nform at i on he obt ai ned th ro u g h h is e m p lo ym e n t w ith [ Ir o n A g e ].

Id. a t 6 6 5 (cit ing A irP rod s. , 4 4 2 A

. 2 d at 11 1 7 ). T h e C o u rt al s o n ot ed thatD vor ak had s i gned an a gr eementw i th hi s new em ploy er pr om i si ng n o t to dis cl ose anyof Ir on A ge’s s ecret s. I d. T ho ug h som e passages i n O berg an d Ir on A ge sug g est that P e n n s y lvan ia co u rt s w il l enjo in n ew em p loym en t m o re r eadi l yw hen the di s cl os ur e of t echni cal tr ade s ecr ets, as di s t i ngui s hed fr om otherm at erials , i s thr eat ened, thos e ca s es do not purpor t t o es t abl i s h an i nfl exi bl e rul e defi ni ng the s cope of

m at er i al s thatcan be s ubj ectt o tr ade secre t pr ot ect i on, nordo th eyl i m i tthe gr ant i ng of i nj unct i ve r el i ef aff ect i ng new empl oym entt o ci r cumst ance s i nvol vi ng tec h n ic a l tra d e se c re ts. R a th e r, th e se o p in io n s re a c h f a c ts peci fi c conc l us i ons thatthe fo rm er empl oy erw as notent i t l ed to in ju n c tiv e r e li e f

a g a in st its d e p a rtin g e m p lo y e e b a rrin g h im fr om w or ki ng fora compet i t or . O ver al l , w e conc l ude thatthe rel evan tP enn sy l van i a decis i on s, view ed as a g rou p , s ug gest th a t (1 ) a d e ter m in a tio n o f w h e th e r to g ra n t in ju n c tiv e re lief

in a tr ade s ecr et s cas e and, i f s o, the pr opers cope of the r el i ef, d e p e n d s o n a h ig h lyf

a c t-sp e c if

ic in q u iryin to th e situ a tio n in the ca s e the courti s cons i der i ng and ( 2) a courtconduct i ng thi s i nqui r yhas di s cr et i on t o enj oi n a def endantfr om beg i nn i ng n e w em ploym ent i f t he fa ct s of t he case demonst r at e a s u b stan ti al th rea t o f tr ade s ecr et m is a p p ro p ri a tio n .B ycontr as t, in Ir on A ge the Super i orC our tfound thatthe 10 r el evanti nform at i on i n that cas e di d noteven qua l i fyas a tr ade s ecr et
. 880 A

. 2d at664- 65. H ence , ther e w as no thr eatthatthe d e f e n d a n t’s c h a n g e in e m p lo ym e n t w o u ld c a u se h im to m isa p p ro p ria te a tra d e se c re t. L ik e w ise , th e c o u rt in O b e rg d id notfi nd anythr eatthat tr ade s ecr et s w oul d be mi s appr opr i at ed, al though i t s r eas oni ng under l y i ng thatconcl us i on w as not p a rticu lar lyc lea r. S e e 5 5 5 A .2 d a t 1 3 2 7 (“ F in n e y ’s p o sitio n in the company and the know l edge he obt ai ned w hi l e in tha t pos i t i on do not demonstr at e an i nevi t abi l i tyof di s cl os ur e as that found i n A i rPr oduct s w hi ch w oul d r equi r e the i s s uance of an in ju n c tio n in th is c a s e .” ). 25 Put t i ng as i de the fa ctthatB ot t i cel l a had ac ces s t o and acqu ir ed conf

i dent i al i nform at i on of a t echni cal natur e about the fo rm u las and ingredi ents for a vari et yof B i m bo produ ct s, he al s o had ac ces s t o and ac qui r ed conf i dent i al i nform at i on aboutB i m bo’ s l ong t erm s tr at egi es, oper at i ng cos t s , and cust om er nego t i at i on s. B ott i cel l a do es not di spute that these types of i nform at i on qual i fyas tr ade s ecr et s under Penns y l vania law

. See A i rPr ods

. , 442 A

. 2d at1121- 22. 10 A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt h a d d isc re tio n to e n jo in B ot t i cel l a fr om w or ki ng at H os t es s t o the ext entthi s pr opos ed empl oym entthr eat ened t o l ead t o the mi s appr opr i at ion of these t rade secr et s.

3. T he D i s tr i ctC ou rt A ppl i ed the C orr ect S tand ard B ott i cel l a nex targues that an i njunct i on against e m p lo ym e n t ca n iss u e u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia la w o n lyw h e n itW hil e t he thr eatof tr ade secretdis cl osure i n D en-T al -Ez arose 11 fr om a pr opos ed m er gerbetw een tw o compani es and notfr om a n e m p lo y e e lea v in g o n e c o m p a n y to w o rk f o r a n o th e r, th e re is no i ndi cat i on that the S uper i or C our t ’ s di s cus s i on of the r el evant 26 w o u ld b e “ v irtu a llyim p o ss ib le” f o r a n e m p lo y e e to f

u lf ill h is r es pons i bi l i t i es fora new empl oy erw i thoutdi s cl o si ng a form er empl oy er ’ s tr ade s ecr et s . A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at23. A ccor di ngl y , B ot t i cel l a cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed as a mat t er of

l aw w hen i tgr ant ed B i m bo an i nj unct i on on the b a sis th a t B o tt ice lla’s e m p lo ym e n t w ith H o ste ss w o u ld lea d to a “s uffi ci ent l i kel i hood or s ubs t ant i al thr eat of di s cl os ur e of a tr ade s ecr et , ” a l esse r s how i ng than i tw oul d have be en
“ v irtu a llyim p o ss ib le” to a v o id th e d is c lo su re o f tra d e se c re ts dur i ng B ot t i cel l a’ s empl oy m en t a tH os t es s . A ppel l ant ’ s br

. at 2 2

. No twi th s t a n d i n g d i c tu m t o th e c o n tr a ryi n o n e o f o u ro wn r ece ntopi ni ons , s ee V i ct aul i c, 4 99 F. 3d at234, w e conc l ude th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt a p p lie d th e c o rr e c t s ta n d a rd

. T he tr i al courti n A i rPr oduct s en joi ned the def

endant fr om w or ki ng i n on- s i t e g as sal es athi s new empl oy er beca us e i tconcl uded i tw oul d be i m pos s i b le f o r t he def

endant to w o rk in that field w ith o u t disclosing h is fo rm er e m p loy er’s tr ade s ecr et s. 4 4 2 A

. 2d at1122. O n appea l the Super i or C our taff i r m ed, butnot ed i tw as “n o t a dopt [i ng] the r eas oni ng of the tr i al court or i t s us e of the t erm i nevi t abl e. ” I d. at1124. T he Super i or C our t s ubs equent l y has s t at ed that “[t ] h e p r oper inqu i ry ” i n det erm i ning w hether t o grant an i njunct i on to pr eventthe thr eat ened di s cl os ur e o f tr ade s ecr et s i s “w hether ther e i s s uffi ci entl i kel i hood, ors ubs t ant i al thr eat ” of a defe ndantdi s cl os i ng tr ade s ecr et s. D en- T al

- E z, 566 A

. 2d at 11s t andar d fori nj unct i ve r el i ef i n tr ade s ecr et s cas es , w hi ch w as gl eane d f

r o m A i rPr o d u c t s , was i n t e n d e d t o b e l i mi t e d t o t he m er gers i tuat i on. See D en- T al

- E z, 566 A

. 2d at1232- 33. 27 1232 ( ci t i ng A i rPr ods

. , 442 A

. 2d at1122- 25; SI H an d l i ng S y s. , Inc

. v . H eisl ey , 7 5 3 F

. 2 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 6 3 -64 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 5 )); s ee a l s o A

. M

. Ski erA gency , I nc. v. G o ld, 747 A

. 2d 936, 942 (P a. S u p er. C t. 2 0 0 0 ) (cit ing D en -T al-E z, 56 6 A

. 2 d at 1 2 3 2 ). T he D i s tr i ct C o u r ti n thi s cas e appl i ed the s t andar d thatthe Super i orC our tappl i ed i n D en- T al

- E z. I n ar gui ng fora “vi r tual i m pos s i bi l i ty ” s t andar d, B o tti c e lla u n d e rsta n d a b lyre lies h e a v ilyo n o u r d e c isio n in V i ct aul i c. I n thatcase, T i eman, a s al es r epr es ent at i ve, had vi ol at ed a c ovenantnott o com p ete w i th hi s form erempl oy er V i ct aul i c, a mechani cal devi ce manufa ctur er , byw or ki ng for a c o m p e tit o r. V icta u li c , 4 9 9 F .3 d a t 2 3 0 -3 1 . V icta u lic br oughta mi s appr opr i at i on of tr ad e secr et s cl ai m i n addi t i on to a ss e rtin g se v e ra l cla im s b a se d o n th e c o v e n a n t n o t to compet e. V i ct aul ic s o u g h ti nj unct i ve r el i ef i n the ac t i on. I d. at231. T he D i s tr i ctC our t d ism is s ed V i ct aul i c’ s covena nt c laim s a n d re q u e ste d a d d iti o n a l b rie f in g o n th e tra d e se c re ts cl aim

. Id. B utbefor e the tr ade s ecr et s cl ai m w as r es ol ved V i ct aul i c fi l ed an i nt er l ocut ory ap p eal , as s ert i ng thatw e had j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. §1292( a)(1) on the gr ound that th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f th e c o v e n a n tc l a i ms ef fe cti v elyd en ied V ict au li c’s re q u e st fo r a p reli m inary in ju n c tio n . Id

. I n d eterm i ni ng thatw e had j ur i s di ct i on t o hearthe a p p e a l, w e c o n c lu d e d th a t “V icta u lic d id n o t re q u e st a28 pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on on i t s tr ade s ecr et s cl ai m , so the D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f th e c o v e n a n t cla im s le f t itw ith n o m e a n s o f

r e c e i v i n g p r e l i m i n a ryr e l i e f

. ” I d

. a t2 3 2

. We th e n w e n t o n to sta te th a t “[ e ]v e n if w e b e liev e d th a t V ict a u lic r e q u e s t e d a p r e l i mi n a ry i n j u n c t i o n o n i t s tr a d e s e c r e t s c l a i m, w e w ou l d find j uri sdi ct i on ” beca use anytrade secre ts in ju n c tio n p o ten tiallya v a ilab le to V icta u lic n e c e ss a rilyw o u ld be narr ow ertha n thatr eques t ed on the cove nantcl ai m s . I d. W e s t at ed: [S] om ethi ng l i ke V i ct aul i c’ s r eques t ed r el i ef ( pr ev e n t i n g Ti e ma n f r o m s e l l i n g s i mi l ar pr oduct s for[hi s new empl oy er ] fora y ea r) c o u ld f it a tra d e se c r e ts c laim , as it i s p o ss ib le fora courtt o enj oi n an empl oy ee w or ki ng i n the r el evanti ndus tryors ol i ci t i ng cus t om er s for s om e per i od of t i m e. B u t su ch a w i de- r angi ng i n j u n c t i o n i s a t yp i c a l ; r a t h e r , t h e u s ual i nj unct i on m er el ypr event s the empl oy ee f r om di s cl os i ng s peci fi ed tr ade s ecr ets.
. . . U nder Penns y l vani a la w , a br oaderi nj unct i on onl yl i es w hen i ti s ‘virtual l yi m pos s i bl e . . . [forthe empl oy ee] t o per form hi s . . . dut i es for [ hi s new empl oy er ] w i thouti n eff ectgi ving [ i t ] the b e n e f it o f [ h is ] c o n f

id e n tia l in f

o rm a tio n .’ Id. at23 4 (quo ti ng A i r Prods. , 44 2 A

. 2d at11 23 ). B ecause V icta u lic “ h a d n o t alle g e d o r a rg u e d in e v itab le d isc lo su re ” in it s tr ad e sec rets claim , w e c o n clud ed that the D istri ct C o u rt l acke d the author i tyt o i s s ue a br oad i nj unct i on bas ed on that cl ai m . I d.29 I n l i ghtof the s cope of the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s i nj unct i on i n the cas e now on appea l befor e us , w e acknow l edge tha t aft er o n e reads V i ct aul i c i ti s pos s i bl e t o concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t erred bygr ant i ng the i nj unct i on w i thout re q u irin g B im b o to sh o w th a t itw o u ld b e “ v ir tu a lly i m pos s i bl e” f

orB ot t i cel l a t o w or k atH os t es s w i thout d isc lo sin g B im b o ’s tra d e se c re ts. B u t th a t re a d in g w o u ld lea v e th e f

o ll o w in g q u e stio n s: (1 ) d id V icta u lic c o rre c tly i nterpretP enn sy l van i a l aw , and (2 ) i f no t , are w e nev ertheles s bo un d b ythat i nterpret at i on i n the pre se n tcase becau se V i ct aul i c i s a pr ece dent i al o p inion i s s ued bya pr i orpanel of th is C o u rt? O u r re v iew o f V ic ta u lic le a d s u s to c o n c lu d e th a t in th a t ca se w e d id n o t in terp re t A ir P ro d u c ts in a w a yp re c ise ly c o n sis ten t w ith P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate p re c e d e n ts. T h e C o u rt in A i rPr oduct s t ook the pas s age thatV i ct au li c quot ed and c o n t a i n i n g th e “ v i r tu a l l yi mp os s i b l e ” l a n g u a g e d i r e c t l yf r o m a dec isio n o f a U nit ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rti n O hio i n a case u n d e r O h io law th a t h a d f a c ts ve ry sim ilar to th o se in A ir Pr oduct s . See 442 A

. 2d at1123 ( quo t i ng E m eryI ndus

. , I nc. v. C ot t i er , 202 U

. S. P. Q

. 829 ( S. D

. O hi o 1978) )

. T he S u p eri or C o u rt in A irP rod u cts fo u n d the re aso n ing o f th e E m ery d e c isio n “ p e rsu a siv e ” a n d h e ld th a t th e trial c o u rt in A ir P rod u cts ac ted re aso n ab lyb yg ran tin g a p reli m inary in ju n c tio n b a se d o n “ p re c ise lyth e r e a so n in g o f th e c o u rt in E m ery . ” Id

. at 11 2 4 -25

. N ev erthe less, the S u p erior C o u rt expl i ci t l ychos e “not [to ] adoptthe r eas oni ng of the tr i al cou rt
. ” Id. at11 25

. Itfoll ow s th a t th e S up eri or C ou rtal so chos e nott o ad o p t the r eas oni ng of the Em erycourt , i tbei ng “pr eci s el y ” the s ame as thatof the t ri al courti n the ca s e on a p p e a l b e f

o re th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt
.A s econd pa nel has the obl i gat i on t o fol l ow the l aw thata pr i or 12 p a n e l se t f

o rth e v e n w h e n th e p rio r pa n e l d e c isio n a p p lied sta te l aw unl es s “ther e is p ersua s i ve evi dence that[the l aw ] has under g o n e a change ” i n w hi ch ca s e “w e ar e notbound byour pr evi ous panel deci s i on i f i tr efl ect ed ourr el i ance on s t at e l aw pr i ort o i t s m odi fi cat i on. ” R obi ns on v. J i ffyE xecut i ve L im o u sin e C o ., 4 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 -4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (c iti n g S m ith v . C algo n C arb o n C o rp., 9 1 7 F

. 2 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 0 )). 30 T he Super i o r C our ts ubs equent l ys t at ed thatthe “pr operi nqui r y ” i n det ermi ni ng w hethert o gr antan i njunct i on t o p reventthe thr eat ened dis cl osure of tr ade secrets i s notw hethera def

endanti nevi t abl yw i l l d iscl o se a tr ade s ecr eti n the abs ence of i nj unct i ve r el ief, buti ns t ead w hether “ther e i s s uffi ci entl i kel i hood, ors ubs t ant i al th rea t, of defendantdoi ng s o i n the futur e. ” D en- T al

- E z, 566 A

. 2d at 1232 ( ci t ing A i rPr ods

. , 442 A

. 2d at1122- 25; SI H andl i ng S y s.,7 5 3 F .2 d a t 1 2 6 3 -6 4 ). W e th e re f o re c o n c lu d e th a t A ir P ro d u c t’s re p e tit io n o f th e p h ra se “ v irtu a llyim p o ss ib le” in descri bing t he E m eryho l ding sh ou l d n ot be i nterpret ed as a s t at ementof Penns y l vani a’ s st andar d forgr ant i ng i nj unct i ons in tra d e se c re ts c a se s, o u r su g g e stio n to th e c o n tra ryin V ic ta u lic n o tw ith s ta n d in g . In a sm u c h a s w e h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t V icta u lic qu est i on ablyi nterpret ed P enn sy l van i a la w , w e nex tm ust det er mi n e whe th e rwe n e v e r th e l e s s a r e b o u n d b yi t s s t a t e ment o f th a t law . In th is re g a rd w e sta rt b yre c o g n izin g th a t itis “the tr adi t i on of thi s courtthatthe hol di ng of a panel i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on i s bi ndi ng o n s ubs equentpanel s ” and cannot be overrul ed abs ent cons i der at i on en banc. I nt ernal 12We d e c i d e d Vi c t a u l i c i n 2 0 0 7 , a n d s i n c e th a tt i me s o f a ra s we ar e aw ar e ther e has notbeen a “c l ears t at ementbythe Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tt o the contr ary or otherper s uas i ve evi dence of a c hange i n Penns y l vani a l aw . ” See Smi th, 917 F. 2d at 1343 ( emphasi s r emoved)

. A ccor di ngl y , the hol di ngs of the V i ct aul i c pane l bi nd us i n the pr es entcas e. 31 O p era ti n g P roc ed u re 9

. 1

. Itis al so w ell est a b li sh ed , h o w ev er, that w e ar e not bound by di ctum i n an ear l i erp an el opi ni on. A bdel fatt ah v. D ept
. of H om el and §. , 488 F. 3d 178, 185 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng M ar i ana v. Fi s her , 338 F

. 3d 189, 201 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ))

. W e conc l ude thatthe V i ct au l i c pane l ’ s di s cus s i on of A ir P ro d u c ts a n d th e in terp lay be tw e e n v irtu a l im p o ss ib ili ty and the i nevi t abl e d isc l os ur e doctr i ne w as di ctum and does notbi nd us i n t he pr es entcas e. T h atdi s cus s i on w as not n e c e ss a ryto th e p a n e l’s ju r is d ictio n a l h o ld in g th a t V icta u lic had fa i l ed t o r eques ta pr el i m i nary inj unct i on on i t s tr ade se c re ts c laim . O n th e c o n tra ry, th e d isc u ss io n o c c u rre d o n ly i n the cont extof a c ount er fac tual hypothe t i cal i n w hi ch the V i ct aul i c pane l pos i t ed tha t, even i f V i ct aul i c had r eques t ed a p reli m inaryinjun cti o n o n it s tr ad e se cre ts cl aim , th e C o u rt n e v e r t h e l e s s wo u l d h a v e h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n . Wh i l e we rec o g n iz e th a t “w h ere a d ec isi o n rests on tw o o r m o re gr ounds , none ca n be r el egat ed t o the categ o ryof obi t er d ict um , ” Phi l adel phi a M ar ine T rad e A ss’n -Int’l L ongs hor emen’ s A s s ’ n. Pe n s i on Fund v. C om m ’ r , 523 F. 3d 1 4 0 , 1 4 7 n .5 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ) (q u o tin g W o o d s v . In ter sta te R ea lty C o . , 3 3 7 U

. S

. 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 , 6 9 S

. C t. 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 7 (1 9 4 9 )), w e d o n o t co n sid e r th e V ic ta u lic d e c isio n o n ju risd ictio n toB ot t i cel l a furtherar gues foran “i m pos s i bi l i ty ” s t andar d by 13 poi nt i ng t o an unpubl i s hed mem or andum opi ni on of the P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p e ri o r C o u rt i n B a c h a ra c h , In c . v . T e s to , In c ., N o. 1257 W D A 2001 (P a. Super

. C t
. 2000) , A pp. at279- 301. I n thatcas e, an empl oy erar gu ed that the C our tcoul d i s s ue an injunc t i on pur s uant t o A i r Pr oduct s bas ed on “the m ere
‘ l i kel i hood’ ” thata t r ade se cr et m i ght be di s cl os ed. A pp. at291. T he S up eri or C ou rtrej ect ed thi s ar gu m ent not i ng that i n A ir P rod u cts i t on lyh a d “d eterm ined that the in ev it ab le disclo su re doctr i ne mi ghtbe pr oper l yap p li ed becaus e ‘ i tw oul d be i m pos s i bl e for t he empl oy ee t o per form hi s dut i es atthe new empl oy erw i thoutdi s cl os i ng tr ade s ecr et s . ’” A pp. at291- 92 (q u o tin g A ir P ro d s ., 4 4 2 A .2 d a t 1 1 2 4 -2 5 ). P u rsu a n t to Penns y l vani a Super i o r C our tR ul e 65. 37, an unpubl i s hed deci s i on s uch as B acha r ach c anno t be cons i der ed as pr ece dent or c ited for anypu rpose r el evan tt o the presentcase. T hu s, B acha r ach’ s i nt erpr e t a t i on of A i rPr oduct s des erves l i t t l e w ei ght t o t he ext enti tconfl i ct s w i th the Super i or C our t ’ s pr ece dent i al o p in io n s. S e e A .M . S k ier A g e n c y, 7 4 7 A .2 d a t 9 4 2 ; D e n -T a lE z , 5 6 6 A .2 d a t 1 2 3 2 . In a n ye v e n t, B a c h a ra c h sto p p e d w e ll s hor tof re qui r i ng r i gi d adher ence t o the l egal r eas oni ng us ed by the tr i al court i n A i r Pr oduct s . A pp. at287 ( r ej ect i ng not i on that 32 have r est ed on i t s i nt erpr et at i on of Penns y l vani a’ s l aw of trad e sec r et s w i th r es pectt o i t s actual hol di ng beca us e w i th or wi th o u td i s c u s s i o n o f th e c o u n t e r f

a c tu a l h yp o th e t i c a l , we wo u l d h a v e h e l d t h a t we h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n . Atb o t t o m w e m e re lyh e ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt h a d d e n ied V icta u lic a ll p r e l i m i n a r y r e l i e f

a n d t h u s w e h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y, V i ct aul i c d o es notpr eventus fr om concl udi ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti n t hi s cas e appl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d. 13“A i rPr oduct s ens hr i nes the ‘ i nevi t abl e di s cl os ur e’ doctr i ne as a n in v io la b le ru le o f

la w ” ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so no t ed th a t in his po si t i on atH ost ess, 14 B ot t i cel l a w oul d r eportt o H os t es s ’ s S en ior V i ce Pr es i dentfor B akeryO per at i ons . B i m bo B aker i es , 2010 W L 571774, at*13. 33 4. E v i dence of B ot t i cel l a’ s R es pons i bi l i t i es atH ost ess B ot t i cel l a nextcont ends that the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by determ i ning t he p robabil i tythat B ott i cel la w ou l d d i scl ose tr ade s ecr et s w hi l e w or ki ng atH os t es s w i tho u tr equi r i ng B im b o to p rov ide m o re d etail ed ev iden ce o f B o tt icell a’s ant i ci pat ed r es pons i bi l i t i es atH o stess. T he r ecor d befor e the D istri ct C o u rtco n tain e d li tt le ev iden ce in this reg ard ap art fr om w hatcoul d be i nferr ed fr om B ot t i cel l a’ s compensa t i on packa ge atH os t es s and hi s t i t l e as the V ice Pre s i dentof B aki ng O per at i ons forthe eas te rn r egi on. N everthel es s the 14 D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatB ot t i cel l a’ s pr os pect i ve pos i t i on atH os t es s w as “s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar ” t o hi s form erpos i t i on at B i m bo, not i ng thatthe H os tes s pos i t i on w as “an e xecut i ve l evel pos i t i on, w i th a s al arycompar ab le to hi s s al aryat B i m b o . ” B i m b o B a k e r i e s , 2 0 1 0 WL 5 7 1 7 7 4 , a t* 1 3

. We agr ee thatthe r ecor d s uppor t s the conc l us ion that i n hi s new pos i t i on at H os t es s , B ot t i cel l a w oul d have broa d over s i ght overbakeryoper at ion s, j us tas he had a tB i m bo. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by prel i m i nari l ydeterm i ning t hat the B i m bo and H ost ess p o sit ion s w ere su b stan ti all ysim il ar.34 5

. A d v ers e In fe ren ce B ase d o n B o tt icell a’s Fai l ur e t o T es t i fy T he D i s tr i ctC o ur tdet erm i ned thatB ot t i cel l a’ s conduct fol l ow i ng h is a cc ep tanc e of t he H os t es s j ob offe r demonstr at ed hi s i nt ent i on t o us e B i m bo’ s tr ade s ecr et s dur i ng h is e m pl oym entw i th H os t es s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tbol s t er ed thi s det erm i nat i on bydr aw i ng an adve r s e i nfer ence fr om B ot t i cel l a’ s fai l ur e to tes t i fyatthe pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on hear i ng. I n s o doi ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tr el i ed on ourdeci s i on i n SI H andl i ng Sy s t ems, I n c. v. H ei s l ey , w her e w e s t at ed that beca us e the mi s appr opr i at i on of a tr ade s ecr etoft en mustbe pr oved by“cons truct [i ng] a w eb of pe rhaps am bi guous ci r cumst ant i al evi dence ” thatoutw ei ghs the def endant s ’ di r ect deni al , the fa i l ur e of de fenda nt s t o test if yi n the fa ce of

a s tr ong s how i ng thata mi s appr opr i at i on orm i s us e occ urr ed “j us t i fi es the i nfer ence thatthei rt es t i m onyw oul d be unfavor abl e t o thei rcaus e.” 753 F. 2d at1261 ( i nt ernal ci t at i o ns om i t t ed)

. O n the otherhand, B ot t i cel l a cont ends that an adve r s e i nfer ence w as i napp rop r i at e bec aus e he c hos e not t o putforw ar d anyevi dence atth e pre l i m i naryi nj unct i on h e a r i n g . I n s u p p o r to f th i s p o s i t i o n h e p o i n t s t o S t o we T o wn s h i p v . S t a n d a r d L i f e I n s . Co

. o f

I n d i a n a , wh e r e we sta ted th a t “w h a tev e r in f e r e n c e m ig h t o th e rw ise b e a v a ilab le fr om the fa i l ur e t o cal l a w i tne s s i s notperm i s s i bl e w hen a defe ndantchoos es t o puton no evi dence atal l , i n appar ent re lian c e o n its d e ter m in a tio n th a t p lai n ti f f h a s n o t m e t it s b u rd e n .” 5 0 7 F .2 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 5 ). E ven as s um ing thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bydr aw i ng an adve r s e i nfer ence fr om B ot t i cel l a’s fai l ur e t o t es t i fy , the concl us i on thatB ot t i cel l a i nt ended t o us e B i m bo’ s tr ade35 se c re ts d u rin g h is e m p lo ym e n t w ith H o ste ss re sts o n a so lid e v id e n tiary ba si s, n a m e ly , B o tti c e lla’s “ n o t d isc lo sin g to B im b o h is acc ep tanc e o f a job o ff er f rom a d ir ec t com p eti tor, r emai ni ng i n a p os i t i on t o r ece i ve B i m bo’ s confi dent i al i nform at i on and, i n fac t , r ece i vi ng s uch i n fo r m at i on aft er comm i t t i ng t o t he H os t es s j ob, and copy i ng B im b o ’s tr ade s ecr eti nform at ion fr om hi s w or k l apt op ont o ext ernal s t or age devi ces . ” B i m bo B aker ies , 2010 W L 571774, at*13. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by determ i ning t hat B i m bo d e m on strat ed a li keli ho od of suc cess o n i t s mi s a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f tr a d e s e c r e t s c l a i m.

B

. Irr ep ara b le H arm T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatB i m bo w oul d s uffe r i r r epar abl e harm abs enti nj unct i ve r el i ef be caus e the d isc lo su re o f

its tr a d e se c re ts to H o ste ss w o u ld p u t B im b o a t a compet it ive di s advant age thata l egal r emedycoul d not r edr es s . O n appea l , B ot t i cel l a does not cont es t th is find i ng apartfr om ar gui ng that anyharm B i m bo pot ent i al l ym i ght s uffe rfr om B ot ti ce ll a’ s empl oym entatH os t es s coul d be p re v e n ted b ya n a rro w in ju n c tio n

— to w h ich B o tti c e lla w o u ld s t i pul at e— pr ohi bi t i ng B ot t i cel la o n l yfr om di s cl os i ng B i m bo’ s tr ade s ecr et s . W e r ecogni ze thatthe evi dence attr i al m ays how thati f B i m bo i s ent i t l ed to reli ef thatr el i ef mi ght be n arr ow y etadeq uate, j ustas B ott i cel l a sugg est s. N eve rt h eles s , att hi s pr el i m i narys t age of the pr ocee di ngs , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t a b u se its d isc re tio n w h e n , f a c e d w ith evi d e n c e o f

Bott i c e l l a ’ s s u s p i c i o u s c o n d u c td u r i n g h i s f i nal w eeks atB i m bo, i tdet erm i ned that a str ongerr emedyw asB o tticella i n ef fe ct ex tend ed the d u rati o n o f th e p reli m inary 15 i n j u n c t i o n b y p u r s u i n g a n i n t e r l o c u t o rya p p e a l f o r , a s we ind icat ed above , the D i s tr i ctC our thas s t ay ed thi s cas e dur i ng th is a p p e a l. 36 neede d i n the i nt er i m t o pr ot ectB i m bo fr om i m m i nent irre p a ra b le h a rm . S e e D e n -T a l-E z , 5 6 6 A .2 d a t 1 2 3 2 (“ It is clearthatunderPenns y l vani a l aw a courtof equi tym ay f a sh io n a tra d e se c re ts in ju n c tio n th a t is b ro a d e n o u g h to e ns ur e t ha tthe i nf

ormat i on i s pr ot e c t e d. ” ) ( qu ot i ng SI H andl i ng Sy s . , 753 F. 2d at1265) ( i nt ernal al t er at i on re m o v e d ).

C

. H arm t o B ot t i cel l a C aus ed byI nj unct i ve R el i ef T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n clud ed that the h arm o f B im b o ’s tr ad e se cre ts be ing d iscl o sed to H o stess o u tw e igh ed the h arm t o B ot t i cel l a of notbei ng ab le t o comm ence empl oym entat H os t es s unt i l the C our tm ade a fi nal det erm i nat i on of the me r i t s f o l l o wi n g a tr i a l , wh i c h i ts c h e d u l e d t o s t a r ta b o u ttwo m onths fr om the dat e i ti s s ued the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. 15 T he C our tno te d thatB ot t i cel l a w oul d cont i nue t o r ece i ve compensa t i on forthe el even w eeks of vac at i on t i m e thathe had ac crued bef

or e l eavi ng B i m bo. W e agr ee w i th the D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n . I n so d o in g , h o w e v e r, w e n o te t hate v e n a t e mpo r a ryi n j u n c t i o n p r o h i b i t i n g s o me o n e fr om pu rs uing his l i veli ho od i n the m ann er he cho oses ope rat es as a sev ere r estri ct i on on him that a courtshou l d n ot i m po se lig h tly

. N e v e rth e les s, su c h a tem p o ra ryre stric tio n o n h is37 e m p lo ym e n t is w a rra n ted w h e re , as h e re , the f a c ts dem o n s tr at e thatthe r es tr i ct i on i s nece s s aryt o pr eventgr eat er i r r epar abl e harm fr om befa l l i ng anoth er pa r ty . Fol l ow i ng a d isp o sitio n o n th e m e ri ts w h ich in th e n o rm a l co u rse o f e v e n ts w i l l fol l ow the di s pos i t i on of thi s appea l and the r emand of th e c a se to th e D istric t C o u rt, i f th e C o u rt h o ld s t h a t B im b o is ent i t l ed t o r el ief, the C our ts houl d fas hi on a r emedy a p p ro p ria te to p ro tec t B im b o ’s tra d e se c re ts w ith o u t u n d u ly i m pos i ng on B ot t i cel l a’ s r i ght to pur s ue hi s chos en occupa t i on.

D

. T he P ub l i c Int eres t W e agr ee w i th the D is tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on that gr ant i ng the pre l i m i naryi nj unct i on w as cons i s t entw i th the p u b lic in ter e st. T h e re a re se v e ra l p u b lic in ter e sts a t p lay i n thi s c a s e . A s no t e d by the D i s tr i c t Cour t , t here i s a gener al i zed publ i c i nt er es ti n “uphol di ng the i nvi ol abi l i tyof tra d e se c re ts a n d e n forceabil i t y of co nfidentia lit y agr eement s . ” B i m bo B aker i es, 2010 W L 571774, at*16. A ddi t i onal l y , ther e i s a publ i c i nt er es t i n empl oy er s bei n g free to h ir e w h o m theyp lease a n d in em p loy ee s b eing fre e to w o rk for w ho m theypleas e. O f t hese lattertw o int eres t s, Penns y l vani a court s cons i derthe ri g htof the empl oy ee t o be the more s i gni fi cant
. See R enee B eaut ySal ons , I nc. v. B l os eV enable, 6 5 2 A

. 2d 1345, 1347 ( Pa. Super

. C t
. 1995) ( “[T] he rig h t o f a b u sin e ss p e rso n to b e p ro tec ted a g a in st u n f a ir compet i t i on s t emm i ng fr om the us urpat i on of hi s or h er tr ade se c re ts m u st b e b a lan c e d a g a in st th e r ig h t o f a n in d iv id u a l to the unhamper ed purs ui tof the occ upat i ons and l i vel i hoods for38 w h ich h e o r she is be s t s u it ed

. ”) (interna l ci tat ion o m itted); s ee a l s o W exl erv. G r eenbe r g, 160 A

. 2d 43 0 , 4 3 4

- 35 ( Pa. 1 9 6 0 ) ( n o t i n g a s o c i e t a l i n t e r e s ti n e m p l o y e e m o b i l i t y )

. We a re sa tisf ied o n th e f

a c ts o f th is c a se th a t th e p u b lic in ter e s t in p re v e n tin g th e m isa p p ro p ria tio n o f B im b o ’s tra d e se c re ts outw ei ghs the t empora ryr es tr i ct i on on B ot t i cel l a’ s choi ce of empl oym ent
. See SI H andl i ng Sy s . , 753 F. 2d at1265 ( fi ndi ng un necessarya n “extended analy si s of t he p ub l i c i nter est [bec aus e] ext ens ive pre cede nts uppor t s an i nj unct i ve r emedy w h ere the e lem en ts of

a trad e se cre t cl aim are estab li sh ed ”).

V. CO NC L US I ON For th e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we wi l l a f f i r m th e or der of the D i s tr i ctC our tdat ed February9, 2010, and ent er ed on F eb rua ry1 2 , 2 0 1 0 , g ran ti n g B im b o ’s m o ti o n fo r a p reli m inary i nj unct i on and w i l l r emand t he ca s e t o thatC o u rtforfur ther p ro c e e d in g s .