F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT AU GU ST 24 , 2 007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1656 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-01752 -CV -A R-S E. A. RENFROE & COMPANY, INC.,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us CORI R IGSBY MORAN, KERRI RI GSBY,
Defen da nt s- App el la nt s, KERRI MORAN, Defen da nt .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 24, 200 7)2

Be fo re BL A CK , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Cori Rigsby

Moran and Ke rri Rigsby appeal the district court’ s grant of a pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n o rd eri ng th em

to de li ve r to th ei r fo rm er em pl oyer, E.A. Re nf ro e & C om

pany , c er ta in d oc um en ts r el at ing to the w ork of that c om pany or its c lie nts inv olv ing H ur

ri cane K atri na -r el at ed

ins ur an ce c la im s. A ft er

r ev ie w ing the record, we aff

irm the district court’ s order.

I. The m aterial f

acts are undis puted. Renfr oe is a corporation headquartered in Birm ingh am , A labam a w hose bus iness inclu des supp ly ing in surance com panies with claim s adjusters in the af term ath of natural disasters. The R igsbysisters are fo rm er Re nf ro e ad j ust er s w ho b eg anw orkin g f or the c om pany in 1998
. I n 20 05, Re nf ro e de plo y ed

the sis te rs to the Mi ssi ssi ppi G ulf Co as t a s part

of ate am of cl ai m s a dj ust er s to a ssi st i ts c lie nt S ta te F ar m ins ur an ce c om

pany handl e its H ur ri cane K atri na -r el at ed

ins ur an ce c la im s. While on th is assign m ent for Re nfroe, the sisters becam e convinced that St at e Farm

w as e nga gin g inw ha t the y w oul d late r de sc ri be a s “ fr au dul en t and po te nt ia ll y

cri m in al act iv it ie s” rel at edto th e d is po si ti on of t he in su ran ce cl ai m s. A s ar es ult , the sis te rs c opi ed som e 15, 000 St at e Farm c la im -r el at ed

doc um en ts3

an d de ci de d to share the m . T he f ir st r ec ipi en t of

the doc um en ts w as Mi ssi ssi ppi law y er Ri ch ar d S cr

uggs , w ho n owr ep re se nts the m a s th ei r attor

ne y ( tho ugh not

in thi s c as e) and who a lso ( as of Jul y 1, 200 6) e m

plo y s th em

a s c onsu ltants . S cr

uggs in t ur n r ec om m en de d th at

the sis te rs share the doc um en ts w iththe Mi ssi ssi ppi A t t o rn e y Ge n e r a l ’s o f

f i c e an dth e F e d e r a l B u r e auo f I n v e s t i g a t i o n . Th e R i g s b ys al so d isc uss ed

the ir f ind be fo re ana tio na l t el ev isi on a udi en ce on Augus t 25 , 200 6
w he n th ey

appe ar ed in a se gm en t onthe A BC N ew s sh ow“ 20/ 20” spo tli ght ing the f r au da l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s tS t a t e F a rm. A ft er le ar nin g of the Ri gsby s’ a ct ivi tie s, Re nf ro e sue d th e sis te rs on Septem ber 1, 2006 , see king m onetary and injunctive relief

, a lleging that they

had violated th eir em

ploym ent contracts with Re nfroe (which contained n on-disclo sure pr ovi sio ns) and the A la

ba m a T ra de S ec re ts A ct . S hortly the re af te r, Re nf ro e al so
m oved the dis trict court to issue a prelim inary injunction comm anding the return of th e d oc um en ts pe nd in g a ful l t ria l o n t he m eri ts of t he ir c as e. Af ter hear ing th e evidence, the district court issuedRenfr oe’ s requested pr el im inary

inj unc tio n onD ec em

be r 8, 200 6. I t f

or ba de the Ri gsby

sis te rs “ an d oth er pe rs ons in a ct ive c onc er

t . . . w iththe m ” fr om

“ furthe r dis cl os[ ing ] , us[ ing ]
or m isa ppr opr ia t[ ing ] ” an y

of the m at er ia l i n qu es tio n, and a lso or de re d th em to: deliver forthwith to counsel for [Re nfroe] all docum ents, w hether4

originals o r copies, of

each docum ent and tangib le thing, in any form or m ed ium , that e ith er

of [ the Ri gsby s] or

any one a ct ing in conjunction with . .
. them , dow nloaded, copied, took, or transferre d fr om . . . Re nf ro e or . . . any of it s c lie nts , inc lud ing , but not li m ite d to St at e Farm

I nsur an ce Co m

pany and whic h r ef

er or r el at e to any insurance claim s invo lving dam ages caused or alleged to have been cau se d b y Hurr ic an e Kat rin a in th e St at e o f Mi ss is si pp i. In l i g h to f a n o n g o i n g cr i m i n al i n v es t i g at i o n b y t h e M i s s i s s i p p i At t o rn ey Ge n er al ’s of fi ce int o th e fr au d a lle ga tio ns a ga ins t S ta te F ar m , the dis tr ic t c ourt e xe m pte d f r o m th e s c o p e o f

th e i n ju n c t i o n d i s c l o s u r e o f

th e d o c u men t s t o , an dth e i r u s e b y, law enforcem ent officials. W ith tho se exceptions, the injunction ordered Renfroe’ s attorney s to keep all these docum ents in their pos session “ under lock
an d ke y . ” T he y

w er e not to dis cl ose any

of the m at er ia l “ to any

e nti ty , inc lud ing [the ir c lie nt] E
. A
. Re nf

ro e & C om

pany . . . w ith out

f ir st o bta ini ng the e xpr es s
w ri tte n a ppr ova l of

[ the dis tr ic t] c ourt. ” T he y w er e, how ev er , pe rm itt ed to use the doc um en ts i n th is p en din g law sui t. I f the y w ish ed to share the doc um en ts w ith others, the attorney s wer e re quired to ob tain written perm issio n from the court aft er an in cam era i ns pe ct io n b y it
. He re we co n s i d erth e R i g s b y s i s t er s ’ ap p ea l o f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s prelim inary

injunction order. W e re view the issuance of that order onlyfor an ab use of dis cr et ion , se e Chur chv. Ci ty of H unt svi lle , 30 F
. 3d 1 332, 134 1 ( 11th Ci r. 199 4) ; “ [h ] ow ev er , if the tr ia l c ourt m isa

ppl ie s th e laww e w ill r ev ie wand5

co rrec t t he erro r wit ho ut de fere nc e to th atco ur t’s d et erm in at io n.” Id. II. Before exerc ising its discretion to issue a prelim inary injunction, the district
co urt w as r equir ed

to sa tis fy it se lf that R en fr oe ha d de m onstrate d f our thi ngs: ( 1) that R en fr oe ha d asub stanti al li ke lih ood of suc ce ed ing on the m er its of it s underly ing lawsuit against th e Rigsby s; (2) that Renfr oe fac ed a substantial th reat of irre parable inj ury

if the inj unction we re not granted; (3) that the threatened inj ur y to Re nf ro e outw ei ghe d th e harm the inj unc tio n w oul d c au se the Ri gsby s; and (4) that granting the injunction would not di sserve the public int erest. Id. ; see al so F er re ro v. A sso ci at ed

Mate ri al s, I nc . , 923 F
. 2d 1 441, 144 8 ( 11th C ir
. 199 1) (r ev ie w ing the iss uanc e of apr el im inary

inj unc tio n inadiv er sity

c as e unde r the federa l standard for injunctive re lief). T he district court found th at Renfr oe had
es t ab l i s h ed ea ch o f t h es e p re re qu i s i t es , a n dth e R i g s b ys n o w c h al l en g e t h e c o u rt ’s fi ndi ngs on a

num be r of gr ound s. A. The R igsby s first challenge the district court’ s finding that Renfroe wa s subs tantially

likely to prevail on the m erits of its claim that the Rigsby s violatedThe pre liminary injunction was premised solely on the district court’s vie w that 1 Renfroe was substantially likely to preva il on the brea ch-of -contra ct claims. It did not reac h Renfroe ’s claim under

the Alaba

ma Tra de Secr ets Act, a

nd we have no occ asion to do so either. 6 the c onf ide nti al ity

pr ovi sio ns i n th ei r em

plo ym en t c ontra ct s. 1 One w ay they do this is by

arguing (without citing any authority ) that Renfroe “ lack[ed] standing to seek an injunction whose result would be the return of docum ents that never belongedto Renfroe. ” By this, we thinkthe sisters m ean that Renfroe hasn’ t suffere d any “ injury in fact, ” w hich is on e of the three
co nst itu tio na lly -r equir ed

pr er equis ite s f

or standi ng. S ee K oz iara

v. Ci ty of Ca sse lbe rr

y , 392 F
. 3d 1 302, 130 4–05 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4)
. T he pr obl em w iththi s argum ent is that the breach of a c ontract has long b een held to be am ong th e ty pes of inj ur ie s th at

c onf er sta ndi ng t o su e. S ee , e . g. , T en n. E le c. P ow er Co
. v. T en n. V al le y A uth
. , 306 U
. S. 118 , 137 –38, 59 S
. Ct
. 366 , 369 ( 1939 ) (s tandi ng i s
av ai la ble w he re “ the r igh t i nva de d is ale ga l r igh t, —on e of pr ope rty , one ari sin g out of ac ontra ct , one pr ote ct ed a ga ins t t ortio us i nva sio n, or one f ound ed on a statute which confers a

privilege” (em

phasis add ed)). By

pleading th e brea ch of a
co nt ract ua l p ro vi si on , Ren fro e as se rte d a su ffi ci en t “ in jury in fa ct ” fo r st an di ng . A nothe r ar gum en t the Ri gsby sis te rs m ak e is tha t the y

w er e not bound b y
an y w ri tte n e m

plo ym en t c ontra ct

by the ti m e the y

w er e w orkin g onthe H ur ri cane K atri na -r el at ed

c la im s. T he y

a sk u s to c om

pare the f our e m plo ym en t a gr ee m en ts7

the y sig ne d inJul y

199 8, S ep te m

be r 1999 , F eb ru ar

y 200 0, and M ay

200 4, w itha f i f t h a g r e e me n tth e y s i g n e di n J u n e 2 0 0 4 j u s tb e f o r e th e y b e g a n w o rk i n g o n c l a i ms rel at edto Hurr ic an e Ch arl ey . Para gr ap h 2( a) of

a ll fi ve of

the e m plo ym en t a gr ee m en ts the sis te rs have put fo rw ar d pr ovi de s f

or an e m plo ym en t r el at ion shi p m ai nta ine d e ith er on an “ at -w ill ” ba sis or “ fo r anind ef

ini te pe ri od. ” P ar ag ra

ph 2 (a ) of the f if th a gr ee m en t, sig ne d in June 200 4, c ont ai ns an a ddi tio na l se nte nc e not f ound in an y of the f ir st f our ag re em en ts. T ha t para gr ap h, in its e nti re ty , r ea ds:

REN FR O E e nga ge s th e E m plo y ee to pe rf

orm a ssi gnm en ts w hic h w ill vary

in w ork ty

pe , le ngth and l oc at ion , a cc or din g to the ne ed s o f ou r bu si ne ss . Em pl oyee wil l b e em

pl oyed b y RENFROE fr om the ti m e he is ch ec ke d ina t the a ssi gnm en t l oc at ionunt il the tim e he is checked out at the assignm ent location. It is further understoo d that em

ploym ent is at-w ill, the E m ploy ee ac cepts such em plo ym en t onthe te rm s and c ondi tio ns s et f orth i n th is A gr ee m en t, an d e ith er party m ay te rm inate suc h e m

plo ym en t a t any

ti m e fo r an y re as on. T hr ough out

e m plo ym en t, E m

plo y ee w ill f

ai thf ull y e xe rc ise suc h auth or ity

and p er fo rm

suc h du tie s a s are a ssi gne d f ro m ti m e to ti m e b y RENFROE. (E m phasis add ed.) T he underscored sentence is the one that was not in that para gr ap h inthe e ar lie r em plo ym en t a gr ee m en ts. A cc or din g to the sis te rs , thi s new sentence m eans that all of their contrac tual obli gations “ expired” w hen they ch ec ke d ou t of

the ir a ssi gnm en t l oc at iona t the c onc lus ionof the ir H ur ri cane Ch ar le y -r el at ed

w ork in 200 4. A nd, the y

arg ue , the ir

K atri na -r el at ed

w ork in200 58

w as not sub j ec t t o any

c ontra ct , not

that on e or

any one . I f so, the c onf

ide nti al ity agreem ent contained in all th e contracts, includin g the fifth and last one that they
s i g n e d , d o e s n o tap p l y t o th e m. W e disagree. T he sisters’ singu lar focus on the sentence in paragra ph 2(a) lim iti ng the dur at ionof

the ir e m plo ym en t w ithRe nf

ro e to the ti m e be tw ee n c he ck
i n an dc h e c k
- o u ta t

an a s s i g n me n tl o c a t i o n i g n o r e s th e o t h e r s e n t e n c e s i n th a ts a me para gr ap h w hic h c ont em

plate an e m

plo ym en t arr an ge m en t tha t w ill span m ult ipl e
as sig nm en ts and b e gove rn ed by the sam e co ntr ac t. F or

e xam ple , the f ir st
se nte nc e of

para gr ap h 2( a) e xpl ai ns tha t “ REN FR O E e nga ge s th e E m plo y ee to pe rf orm a ssi gnm en ts [ in the plura l] w hic h w ill vary in w ork ty

pe , le ngth and loc at ion , a cc or din g to the ne ed s of [ its ] bus ine ss. ” A nd i f that i sn’ t c le ar e noug h, the sis te rs a gr ee d inthe f ina l se nte nc e of

para gr ap h 2( a) to “ fa ith fu lly e xe rc ise such autho rity

and perform

such duti es as ar e assigned from tim e to tim e [a s op po se d t o ju st on ce] by

RENFROE.” Rea di ng th e en ti re p ro vi si on in co nt ex t, we have no difficulty

concludin g that the langu age the Rigsby s rely on does no t m ean what they say it m eans. The June 2004 agreem ent, which is the fifth and last on e, and the non -disclosure provis ion within it, covered the sisters’ Katrina-re lated
w ork. T ha t w ork w as one of tho se a ssi gnm en ts tha t the y r ec ei ve d “ fr om

ti m e to ti m e.”9

T he Ri gsby

sis te rs of fe r a num be r of f al lba ck arg um en ts c onc er

nin g Ren fro e’s li ke li ho od of u lt im at e su cces s, b ut no ne of t he m ha ve an y m eri t ei th er. Fo r ex am ple , the sis te rs a sse rt

that “ Re nf

ro e ha s pr es en te d no e vid en ce that the Ri gsby s c opi ed

any doc um en ts tha t w oul d f

al l w ith in the c onf

ide nti al ity provisi ons of the em

ploym ent agreem ents.” B ut the confidenti ality provisio ns at iss ue in thi s c as e ap ply

ve ry br oa dly , and unde r the m , c onf ide nti al inf

orm at ion inc lud es a ll: da taand i nf

orm at ionr el at ing to the bus ine ss o f REN FR O E and i ts cl ie nts w hic h is or

ha s be endis cl ose d to the E m plo y ee or w hic h th e E m plo y ee be cam e aw ar e as ac onse que nc e of or thr oughe m

plo ym en t w ithREN FR O E and whic h ha s va lue to REN FR O E or it s c lie nts but is not g enerally

known to the pu blic. T h e R i g s b ys a d mi ti n th e i r an s w e r th a tth e y p r o v i d e ds o me 1 5 , 0 0 0 p a g e s o f c l a i ms inform ation to th eir lawy er, the FBI , and the Missi ssipp i Attorney Ge neral. T here is n o su gge sti on tha t a ll tho se doc um en ts r el at ing to H ur ri cane K atri nam atte rs f

el l fro m th e sk y in to th ei r ha nd s. Another fa llback argum ent is the sisters’ assertion that Renfroe “ has failed to prove that it has su ffer ed any dam ages as a r esult of the Rigsby s’ alleged breac h of c ontra ct . ” T his , how ev er , ign or es the f ac t tha t the Ri gsby s a ct

ua lly acknowledged in their em ploym ent agreem ents that Renfroe w ouldsuffer

“ im m ed ia te and i rr ep ar ab le dam ag e an d lo ss” upo n th e br ea chof the non -10

di sc lo su re p ro vi si on , whi ch is why th e p ro vi si on was i nc lu de d t o b eg in wit h. Fi na lly , the Ri gsby s say

that the pub lic pol ic y

c onc er n of f er re tin g ou t
co rp or at e w ro ngdo ing j ust if ie s th ei r br ea chof

the c ontra ct

ua l du ty und er the confidentialityprovisio n and couns els against enforcem ent of it. B ut that concern is o ne that i s a de qua te ly

c ove re d by

dis cl osur e of

the a lle ge d w ro ngdo ing to state
an d f ed er al lawe nf

or ce m en t a ge nc ie s. A s R en fr oe put it in its br ie f, “ Re nf

ro e mak e s n o c o mp l a i n tab o u tth e R i g s b ys ’ p a rt i c i p a t i o n i n an y i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y a gove rn m en ta l l awe nf

or ce m en t a ge nc y . T he f

ac t tha t the Ri gsby s gave c opi es of doc um en ts t o th e Mi ssi ssi ppi A tto rn ey G en er al and [ fe de ra l l awe nf or ce m en t] is not a t i ssu e in this li tig at ion
. ” A s w e expla ine d e ar lie r, the pr el im inary inj unc tio n, which is all that we have before us, perm its disclo sure to and use by law
en fo rcem en t ag en ci es . For these re asons, we agree with the district court that Renfroe has dem onstrated a subst antial likeliho od of succeeding on the m erits of its claim that the Rigsbysisters violated th eir contrac tual dutyto keep the claim s files
co nf id en ti al
. B. H av ing c onc lud ed

that R en fr oe is subs tanti al ly li ke ly to pr ev ai l onit s breach-of- contract claim , w e turn briefly to the three re m aining p relim inary11

inj unc tio n r equir em en ts o f ir re para ble inj ur y , ba lanc ing the hard shi ps, and
co nsi ste nc y

w iththe pub lic int er es t. Re gard ing the ir

re para ble inj ur y r equir em en t, the Ri gsby s have giv enus n o reason to doub t the district court’ s conclusio n that “ [m ] onetary dam ages are
w oe fu lly ina de qua te a s am eans o f ad dr es sin g” the sis te rs ’ c ont inu ed abil ity to

“ en ga ge in publ ic c ri tic ism of Re nf ro e’ s m ost

im portant c lie nt” abse nt the i n ju n ct i o n . Th e s i s t er s d o p o i n to u tth at St at e F ar m h as co n t i n u ed t o u s e R en fr o e’s adj ustm ent services since the Rigsby s’ wholesale disclosure of the confidential inf orm at ion , and tha t a t the N ove m be r 14, 200 6 pr el im inary inj unc tio n he ar ing , Renfroe’ s secretary -trea surer “ could no t nam e a single adj ustor who had term inated their em

ploym ent with Renfr oe as a r esult of the Rigsby s’ actions.” How ever, neither of these fa cts calls into qu estion th e existence of the c laim ed inj ur y to Re nf ro e’ s go odw ill and r ep utatio n—whic h, a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt no te d, is

“ dif fi cu lt to p ro ve . ” S ee F er

re ro , 923 F
. 2d at 14 49 ( not ing that l oss of goo dw ill
can be an ir

re para ble inj ur y ). Mo re ove r, a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt m en tio ne d init s opi nio n, both si ste rs “ expr es sly a cknow le dge d inw ri tin g th e virtua l i m poss ibi lity
o f qu an t i f yi n g th e d a mag e s th a two u l db e c au s e db y ab r e a c h o f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y, and expressly

. . . authorized the rem edy of a pre lim inary

injunction as appropriate.” W e agre e w ith the dis trict court that Renfr oe established th e threat12

o f i rr e p a r ab l e i n

ju ry. Finally , w e also agree with the district court that Renfroe carr ied its burden on the ba lanc e- of

-h ar dshi ps and p ubl ic int er es t r equir em en ts, the dis cu ssi on o f
w hic h th e Ri gsby s c om

bin e. T he y

a sse rt that the inj unc tio n is a ga ins t pu bli c p o l i cy b ec au s e i taf

fo rd s “ t h e t ar g et s o f c ri m i n al i n v es t i g at i o n s [s u ch as Re n fr o e’s cl ie nt , Sta te Farm ] th e o pp or tu ni ty to ac ces s” th e cl ai m s d oc um en ts in qu es ti on . This argum ent is illog ical. If there is too m

uch disclos ure, the rem edy is not to tal dis cl osur e. T he sit

ua tio n th at

the Ri gsby

sis te rs se ek , the abse nc e of any r es tr ai nts on d isc los ur e, w oul d m ak e al l of the doc um en ts f

re el y a va ila ble to the w or ld in cl ud in g a ny andall tar ge ts of a ny andall cri m in al in ve st ig at io ns . T he sis te rs a lso arg ue that the inj unc tio n e xpos es the m to cr im ina l l ia

bil ity in M iss iss ipp i f

or vio la tin g su

bpoe na s th ey

have r ec ei ve d r equir ing the m to pr od uc e d oc um en ts to a gr an d ju ry th ere. No , itdo es n’t. As we h av e sa idtwi ce, the inj unc tio n sp ec if

ic al ly a llo w s di sc los ur e of

the doc um en ts t o “ lawe nf or ce m en t officials. ” AFFIRMED.