### NUM BER 13-07- 364- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
SHO REL INE GAS, IN C., A pp ellan t,
v. CH UC K M CGA UGH EY, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 2 of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t Sh oreli ne Ga s, Inc . ( “S horeli ne” ) appeal s from the deni al of it s a ppl ic ati on for a temporar

y i nju nct ion ag ain st appel lee C huck M cGa ug hey , i ts former empl oy ee, u nder the n on- compet it ion , no n -so lic it a ti o n , a n d no n -d isc lo su re pro visio n s o f a Co n fidenti ali ty

and Non -C ompeti ti on Ag re ement ( “A g re ement” ) si g ned byMcG aug hey

. The tr ial co urt found thes e prov is ion s t o be inv ali d and unenforc eabl e. This ac cel erated int er lo cu tory appeal
ensue d. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28. 1. By four issues, Shore line argues tha t the trial court abuse d i ts dis creti on in den y ing i ts appl ic ati on for temporar y i nju nct iv e reli ef. W e aff ir m theM cG aughe y cl ai m s t hat when he t ol d Ri an G r i sem er , pr esi dent of Shor el i ne, t hat he woul d not si gn 1 th e A g r e e m e n t, G r is e m e r to ld h im “ ifth in g s d o n ’t w o r k o u t y o u c a n g o b a c k to w o r k f o r a la r g e r c o m p a n y. T h a t w o n ’t b e a p r o b le m .” S h o r e lin e d is p u te s th is c la im

. 2 jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND Shoreli ne i s i n the natu ra l g as mark eti n g bus ine ss
. It purchas es g as from g as produce rs and then sel ls or mark ets that g as to ot her enti ti es. M cGa ug hey

w as hired by S h o r e l i n e i n 2 0 0 2 a s a g a s s u p p l y re p re s e n t a t i v e a n d w a s e x p e c t e d t o s o l i c i t g as produce rs , purchas e gas f ro m suc h gas produc ers, neg oti ate contract s, and mai ntai n and
ex pand S horeli ne’ s rela ti onshi ps w it h new and ex is ti ng produce rs
. It is undi sput ed th at Mc Gaug hey

w as an at -w il l employ ee. As a c ondi ti on of hi s h ir ing , M cGa u ghe y w as re q uired to si g n the Ag re ement, w hic h c ontai ned non -c ompeti ti on, n on- sol ic it ati on, a nd
non -disclosure covena nts. Alth ough McGau ghey dispu tes th e circumsta nces u nde r w hich he s ig ned t he Ag re ement, i t i s u ndi sput ed th at he si g ned t he Ag re ement immedi atel y upon 1
commenc ing hi s e mploy ment w it h Shoreli ne. Sho reline ab ruptly terminat ed McGau ghey’ s e mp loymento n April 25, 2 007 . Shortly thereafter, Shoreli ne broug ht s uitagai nstMcG aug hey se eki ng a de cl arator

y j udg ment t hat the non -comp ete , non -solicitation , and non -disclosure prov isions of the Agreem ent are enforc eabl e, an d s eeki ng temporar y and per mane n t

i nj u n ct i v e reli ef. Shoreli ne al so ser v ed McGaughe y

w ith a tem pora ry

restraining order requiri ng him to abid e by tho se provisions. Mc G a u gh e y f il e d a f irs t

a m e n d e d o r i g i n a l a n s we r d e n y i n g S h o re l i n e ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s g e n e ra ll y, and pl eadi ng sp eci fical ly w aiv er and est oppel , c oll ateral est oppel , fail ure of Shoreli ne to
v erif y its petition for injunctio n, an d failure of Shore line to allege w ith spe cif icity a proba ble in ju ry. Af ter tem pora ry

injunctio n he arings on May 7, 22, and 23, 20 07, the trial court deni ed Sho re li ne’ s req uestfor t emporar y i nju nct ion

. Spec ific all y , t he tri al cour t’ s orde r of June 6, 200 7 stat ed a s follows:3 OR DE R DE NY IN G I NJ UN CTIVE R ELIEF O n M a y 7, 2007, th e c o u rtc a l l e d fo r h e a r i n g t h e m o t i o n o f p l a i n t i ff Shoreli ne Ga s, Inc ., for inj unct iv e rel ief. Al l par ti es appeared and announc ed re ady

. Hav ing heard the ev ide nce and arg ument of couns el, the cour t finds that the [ si c] all of

the prov is ion s of the Confide nti ali ty and Non C ompeti ti on Ag re ement s ig ned by

defendant Chu ck Mc Gaug hey w hic h l imi t i n any

w ay def end ant ’s ri ght t o com pet e w ith plaint if f o r to so licit pla intif

f ’s custom ers are unenforc eabl e. It is ORD ER ED that all inju nct iv e reli ef req uest ed by pl ain ti ff , i ncl udi ng thatre l i e f b a s e d u p o n p a ra g ra p h s 4 ( N o n - d i s c l o s u re o r U s e o f Tr ade Secrets), 5 ( Non -d is cl osure or U se of Confiden ti al Informati on) , 7 (N on compet it ion ), and 8 (N on- sol ic it ati on of Ac count s) of the C onfidenti ali ty and Non Com pet ition Agreem ent , is DENIED. Nei ther par ty req uest ed, nor did the tr ial cour t suppl y , findi ng s o f factor co ncl usi ons of l aw
. Fol low ing the cour t’ s deni al of its req uestfor a temporar y i nju nct ion , Sh oreli ne fil ed its notice of

interl o c u tory app eal. Se e T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 51.014( a) (4 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. Shoreli ne c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by deny ing i ts appl ic ati on for temporar y inj unct ion

. Spec ific all y , Shoreli ne arg ues that the t ri al
cour t er re d by : (1 ) findi ng the non- compet e c ov enant of the Ag re ement t o be unenforc eabl e; ( 2) findi ng the non- sol ic it ati on co ven a nt of the Ag re ement t o be unenforc eabl e; ( 3) findi ng the non- dis cl o su re co v enant of the Ag re ement t o be
un en forc ea bl e; a nd ( 4) refu s i ng to r efo r m th e g eo g rap hi c al area , s c op e of a c ti v i ty , an d ti me of the v ar iou s c ov enants of the A g re ement an d to enforc e them as refor med pursu ant t o sec ti on 15.51( c) of the Tex as Busi ness and Commerce Cod e. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C ODE A NN
. § 15 .51 (c) (Verno n Sup p. 20 07). II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW The deci si on to g ra nt or deny a temporar y inj unct ion li es in the sound di sc re ti on of the t ri al cour

t, and t he c our

t' s r uli ng i s subje ct to rev ersal onl y for a cl ear

abus e of dis creti on. Walli

ng v . Metc alf e , 863 S.W .2d 5 6 , 57 (Tex . 199 3)

. In rev iew ing an o rd er grant ing or den y ing a temp orary injunct ion, we must view the evidence in t h e lig ht m ost fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t’ s deci si on, ind ulg ing ev er y reason abl e i nferenc e i n i ts fav or
. See Di esel Injec ti on Sales & Ser

v., Inc . v . G onzale z , 631 S.W .2d 193, 195 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus4

Christi 198 2, no w rit). How ever, a trial court ab uses its discretio n in den y ing a temp orary inj unct ion w hen it mis appl ies the law to the e sta bli shed facts. See Loye v. Travelhost, Inc. , 156 S.W .3d 615 , 619 (Te x
. App .–Dallas 2004 , no pet.) (op. on reh’g); s ee a l s o St ate v
. Sw

. Bel l Tel. C o. , 526 S.W .2d 526 , 528 (Tex. 1975 ). It is w ell estab lished th at w hen no f indings of f act or con clusions o f law are re q uest ed or f il ed, w e must uphold the tri al cour t’ s j udg ment on any

l eg al theor

y su ppor ted by the re cord. See, e.g., D avi s v . H uey , 5 7 1 S .W .2d 8 59, 8 62 ( Tex . 197 8) ; Sea m an v. Seam an , 425 S .W .2d 3 39, 3 41 (Te x
. 196 8). Here, the trial court did include in its order a findi ng thatthe non- compete, non -s oli ci tati on, a nd non- dis cl osure prov is ion s o f the Agreem entare “inv alid an d un enforcea ble.” Sho reline argues that the trial court, w ith this state me nt, h as arriv ed at a conclu sion of la w o n the f inal issue of

the en forcea bility

of those prov is ion s, and t hat o ur rev iew is therefore li mite d to thi s conc lus ion

. W e di sag re e. Ev en if w e w ere to assum e tha t this state me nt w as in fact a con clusion o f law , such con clusions, alt houg h “ hel pful” i n our rev iew of an i nter loc utor

y order , are notbi ndi ng i n our deter minat ion of w hether a t ri al cour

t has abus ed i ts dis creti on. See TomJam es of Dallas, Inc . v . C obb , 109 S.W .3d 877, 884 (Tex

. App.–D all as 2003, no pet .) ; see a lso IKB In dus. (N ige ri a) , Ltd. v

. Pr o- Lin e C or

p. , 938 S.W .2d 440, 442 (T e x. 19 9 7 ); Chrysler Corp. v. Bl ack m on , 841 S.W .2d 8 44, 852 (Tex . 1992). Acc ordin g ly , w e use the standard of rev iew appl ic abl e to cas es w here no findi ng s o f factor co ncl usi ons of law

hav e been re q uest ed
or fil ed. See Davis , 571 S.W .2d a t 862

. Mo re ov er , des pit e the breadth of the tr ial co urt’ s l ang uag e i n dec lar ing the cont ractua l prov isions un enforcea ble, th e ultim ate issue of enforcea bility

w as no t before the trial cou rt a t the t em pora ry in junctio n hea ring, an d it is notbefore this cou rt on ap pea l. See T omJa m es , 109 S.W .3d at 884- 85. That is becau se the t ri al cour t’ s refusal to g ra nt a temporar

y i nju nct ion w as based onl y on the re cord produce d at the t emporar y i nju nct ion h e a ri ng , nota full tr ial on t he mer it s. Id. a t 88 5. W e w i l l n ota s s um e th att he e v i dence tak en ata preli minar

y hear ing w il l be th e s ame as the ev ide nce dev elo ped ata tr ial on t he5

meri ts, and so w e do not reach the u lt imat e i ss ue of the enforc eabi li ty of the n on- compet e, non- sol ic it ati on, a nd non- dis cl osure prov is ion s. Id. W e w il l onl y addres s the enforceabi li ty of those prov is ion s i nsofar as i ts affect s o ur

anal y si s o f w hether the ele ments re q uired for is suanc e of a te mpora ry i nju nct ion hav e been sat is fied. See T omJa m es , 109 S.W .3d a t 883; see also Diesel Inject ion Sale s & Servs., Inc. v. Renfro , 6 5 6 S

. W

. 2 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 1 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1983, w ri t ref’d n.r .e.) (pr ior appeals of deni al of temporar y i nju nct ion did not determ in e rea so n a b le n e ss of no n -co m p e te co ven a n t b e ca u se revi ew was re str icted to ab use o f

discretion; rev iew

in appe al f rom trial on merits is not so restricte d). III . D I S CUS S I ON T he p urpo se of

a tem pora ry

injunctio n is to preserve the sta tus quo of the litigation's subj ectmatte r pendi ng tr ial on t he mer it s. Butnar u v. For d Motor C o. , 84 S.W .3d 1 98, 2 04 (Tex . 200 2) ; City of McAl lenv. McAl

len Pol ic e Of ficer s U nio n , 2 2 1 S

. W

. 3 d 8 8 5 , 8 9 3 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2007, pet. deni ed)

. A te mpora ry i nju nct ion i s a n extraordin ar y remedy and doe s n ot i ss ue as a mat ter of ri g ht. But

naru , 84 S. W .3d at 204 . To obta in a tem pora ry inj unct ion , t he appl ic ant mus t pl ead and prov e three s peci fic e lement s: (1) a c ause of act ion ag ain st the defendant; (2 ) a probabl e ri g ht to the re li ef s oug ht; and ( 3) a probabl e, immi nent, and ir re parabl e inj ur y in the i nter im. Id. The party seekin g the injunctio n be ars the b urden of prov ing eac h of thes e el ements

. City of McAl len , 221 S.W .3d a t 893

. A . Cause of Action T o satisf y t he f irst ele me nt of

the te mp orary injunct ion te st, an app licant ne eds o nly to pl ead a c o g n i z a b l e c a u s e o f a c t i o n , a n d d o e s n o t n e e d t o s h o w a d e fi n i t e r i g h t t o the final reli ef soug ht. See W all ing , 863 S.W .2d a t 58 (“ the i ss ue i n det er mini ng w hether an appl ic ant h as met th e first q ual ific ati on for a temporar y w ri t of inj unct ion i s n ot w hether the pray er se ekin g t h e w ri t and the ult imat e c ause of acti on are rela ted, but w hether the
a ppl ic ant h as a c ause of acti on atal l. ”) ; Sun O il C o. v . Whitak er , 4 2 4 S.W .2d 2 16, 2 18 (Tex . 196 8) ( hol din g t h a t “a n a ppl ic ant i s n ot req uired to es tabl is h tha t he w il l prev ail on final tr ial ; he n e e ds onl y to ple ad a caus e of act ion and to s how a probabl e r ig ht on finalAn app l i cant f or per m anent i nj unct i v e r el i efm ust est abl i sh t he f ol l owi ng f ourel em ent s: ( 1) t he 2 exi st ence ofa wr ongf ul act ; ( 2) t he e xi st ence ofi m m i nent har m ; ( 3) t he e xi st ence of i r r epar abl e i nj ur y ; and (4 ) th e a b s e n c e o f a n a d e q u a te re m e d y a t la w
. M ont f ort v. Trek Res. , I nc. , 198 S. W

. 3d 3 44, 350 ( T ex. A pp
. –E as t l an d 2 00 6, no pe t

. ). 6 trial to the relief

he see ks and proba ble injury in the interim. ”) Shoreli ne, i n i ts ori g ina l peti ti on, s oug ht a final remedy of decl arator

y reli ef under
c h a p t e r 3 7 o f

t h e T e xa s Ci vil P ra c t ic e a n d Re m e d ie s Co d e a s we ll a s p e rm a n e n tin ju n c t ive
re li ef. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . §§ 37 .00 1-.01 1 (Verno n Sup p. 20 07). T hese claims are cogniz able und er T exas law . W e the refore con clude thatShore line me t the f irst
re q uirement t o obt ain a t emporar y i nju nct ion

. See Butn aru , 84 S.W .3d a t 204
. B. Pr ob abl e R ig htt o Rel ief The sec ond el ement req uired for the is suanc e of a temporar

y inju nct ion i s a sh ow ing of a proba ble right to relief upo n a f inal trial on the merits. W hen the f inal relief sought is inj unct iv e i n nat ure, t he appl ic ant mus t s how a probable r ig ht on final hear ing to a per manent i nju nct ion

. See S un Oil C o. , 424 S.W .2d a t 218

. Shoreli ne has req uest ed final 2
re li e f i n t h e f o rm of both i nju nct iv e and decl arator y reli ef. Thus, to deter mine w hether Shoreli ne has a probab le r ig ht t o final reli ef, iti s n eces sar y for u s t o ex amine the enforc eabi li ty

of the n on- compet e, no n- sol ic it ation , a n d non- dis cl osure prov is ion s o f the Ag re ement. 1. Enforce abili ty

of the Cov enant Not To Compete Th e n o n - c o mp e t e c o v e n a n t e x e c u t e d b y S h o re l i n e a n d M c G a u g h e y s t a t ed as follows: 7. Non c o mp etition . In recognition o f the fact th at th e Com pan y is eng ag ed i n a b usi ness inv olv ing Con fidenti al Informati on c onst it uti ng trade sec re ts and personal rela ti onshi ps w it h [a] cc ounts and prospecti v e ac count s and prospe ctiv e bu siness ad v ant ages, the success of w hich bu siness is in larg e par t due to the e x cl usi v e retent ion of such Confide nti al Informati on and cont inu ati on of suc h personal rela ti onshi ps w it h suc h Acc ounts , and for the c on s i de rat i on recited a bo v e, I c ov en an t an d ag ree a s fol l ow s : d ur i ng my employ ment w it h the C ompany , and for a per iod of tw o ( 2) y ears fol low ing the d ate t hat I ce ase to be empl oy ed w it h t he C ompany for a ny reason , re g ardle ss of w hether t he c ess ati on of my empl oy ment i s v olu ntar y or w it h or w it hout caus e, I w il l not c ompete i n any w ay w it h the b u sin e ss of the7

Compan y

any w here w it hin the g eog ra phi cal area spec ified in Ex hib it“ A” ( the “Area”), on be half

of myself o r any oth er person or ent ity , or have a mo net ary intere st in any person, f irm , c orpo ration or entity that en gages i n bu siness si mil ar to the b usi ness of t he Compan y
. F or the pur poses of thi s p arag ra ph and t his co v enant, the ter m “ comp e te i n a n y w ay w it h the bus ine ss of the Comp a n y ” s h a l l me a n t h a t I s h a l l n o t , d i re c t l y o r i n d i re c t l y , o r o n b e h a l f of any person o r entity, call on, conta ct, solicit, han dle bu siness for, or perform or render any se rv ic es re lat ed to the buy ing , sel li ng or mar ket ing of natural gas or rela ted o r der iv ed hy drocar bons or hy drocar bon by -p ro duct s t o any person, fir m, c or porati on or othe r e n ti ty that is or

w as a former

Ac count , cl ien t, cus tomer , or

acti ve prospect for busi ness for t he C ompany , or busi ness oppor

tuni ty of the Company , duri ng my empl oy ment and dur ing the tw elv e ( 12) months i mmediat ely pr ior to the date of ter minat ion or ce ss ati on of myemploy ment w it h the Company as evi dence d by

the books and re cords o f t h e Co m p a n y. Covenant s not to comp ete are g ene rally conside red restraint s of trade a nd a re d isf a v ored i n l aw
. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 5

. 0 5 ( a ) ( V e r n o n S u p p
. 2 0 07) (“Ev erycontract , com bina tion, or conspiracy i n restraintof trade o r comm erce i s u nl aw ful.”);
s e e also Travel Masters, Inc. v. Star Tours, Inc. , 82 7 S. W .2 d 83 0, 83 2 ( T ex. 1991 ). How ev er , t he C ov enants N ot to Compet e Ac t ( the “ Act ”) se ts forth cer tai n c ircums tanc es under w hic h s uch cov enants are enforc eabl e. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C ODE A NN . §§ 15.50- .52 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007)

. The Actprov ide s i n rele v ant p art t hat:

Notw it hst andi ng Sec ti on 15. 05 of thi s c ode, and s u bje ct to any app licable provision of Subse ction (b), a covena nt n ot to comp ete is en forc ea bl e i f it is a nci llar y t o or p arto f an ot her

w ise e nfor ceab le agreemen t at th e ti me th e ag reem entis mad e to t he extent that itco ntai ns li mitati o n s as to t ime, g eog ra phi cal area, a nd s cope of acti v ity to be restraine d tha t are reaso nab le and d o notim pose a greate r restrain t tha n is neces sar

y to protec t t he good w il l or othe r busi ness i nterestof the p ro mis ee. Id. § 15.5 0(a) (emp hasis ad ded ). Therefore, un der

the Act , w e mustfirst deter mine w hether the par ti es entered i nto an “ other

w is e enforc eabl e ag re ement” a n d w e mustthen dete rmi ne w hether the noncompet e c ov enant w as “a nci ll ar y to or par t of” that ag re ement. S e e id. I f t h e ans w er

to both inq uir ies i s a ff ir mati v e, t he non- compet e c ov enant is enforc eabl e as a matter of l aw to t he extent that iti s reason abl y rest ri cte d as to ti me, g eog ra phi cal area, a nd s cope of act iv ity
. See i

d.8

i. “Otherw ise Enforceabl e Agreem ent” An em ployer and an at-w ill em ployee can not , by def inition, have an “othe rw ise enforc eabl e ag re ement” per tai nin g to the d urati on of the e m p lo y ee’ s e mploy ment. How ever, “ at-w ill em ploymen t doe s not precl ude t he format ion of other co ntract s b etw een em ployer an d em ployee.” Ligh t v. Cente l Cellular C o. of Tex. , 8 8 3 S

. W

. 2 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 4 (T e x. 1994) ( emphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. In ot her w ords, an a g re ement mus t be suppo rt ed by consid e ra tion to be de em ed “oth erw ise enforcea ble,” bu t in the co nte xt of at-w ill employ ment, that consi derati on c annot be depe ndent on a per iod of cont inu ed employ ment. Id. Such a prom ise w ould be illusory in tha t it w ould fail to bind the pro miso r,
w ho alw ay s ret ain s the optio n of disc onti nui ng employ ment in l ieu of per formance. Id. at 6 4 5 (cit in g E. L ine & Red Ri ver R .R . C o v

. Sc ott , 10 S.W . 99, 102 (Tex . 188 8) ( noti ng that in at-w ill em ploymen t, “it is no b reach of contractto ref use to receiv e f urthe r serv ices.”)). How ever, an “othe rw ise enforcea ble agreem ent ” c a n e m a nat e f rom a t-w ill employ ment s o l ong as the cons ide ra ti on for any promis e i s n ot i ll usor

y
. See Light , 8 83 S.W .2d a t 6 4 5

. E ven i f one promis e i s i ll usor y , a uni lat eral cont ra ct mayst il l be formed—t he non-i ll usor y promis e can s er

v e as an o ff er , w hic h the promis or w ho made the il lus or y promis e c an ac ceptby per formance. Id. at 645 n. 6. The fact t h a t th e empl oy er
w as not b ound t o per

form bec ause he coul d hav e fire d the e mploy ee i s i rrele v ant; if he h as per formed, h e has acc epted the employ ee’ s offer and created a bin din g uni lat eral cont ra ct. Id. The major ity opi nio n i n Light contai ned a footnote sug g est ing that such a uni lat eral cont ra ct mig ht no t be suffici ent to suppo rt a non- compet e cov enant, becau se it is not a n “o ther w is e enforc eabl e ag re ement at t he ti m e the agr

eem ent i s m ade ” pursuantto sec ti on 1 5 .5 0 (a ). 88 3 S. W .2 d at64 5 n. 6 (cit in g T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15 .5 0(a)) (e mphasi s a dded)

. Rat her , i t w oul d onl y bec ome enforc eabl e upon the perfor mance of the employ er , w hic h w oul d oc cur subs eq uent to the act ual ex ecut ion of the a g re ement. See9

id. How ev er , t his su g g est ion w as cl ear ly reje cte d by

the Tex as Supreme C our t i n Alex Shes hunoff

M anagem e n t Se rvices, L. P. v . Johnso n, 209 S.W .3d 644 , 646 (Tex. 2006 ). In Shes hunoff

, t h e c o u rte x a mi n e d t h e e n fo r c e a b i l i t y o f a n o n - c o mp e t e c o v e n a n tunder
w hic h the empl oy er

had no c o r respon din g enforc eabl e obl ig ati on atthe ti me the ag re ement
wa s mad e—inste ad, the em ployer’s oblig ation s w ere on ly trig gered by its performa nce some t ime after the e x ecut ion of the a g re ement. Id. at 650- 51. Rel y ing on th e fo o tn ote inc lud ed i n Light , the emp loyee argued tha t the non -comp ete cov ena nt w as inva lid beca use th ere w as no “otherwi se en forcea ble agreem entat the t ime t he agreem ent[w as] made” as req uired by

se cti on 15. 50( a)

. Id. at 650; see Light at 64 5 n.6 ; T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15. 50( a)

. The supreme co urt di sag re ed w it h the empl oy ee’ s i nter pretati on of the s tatut e: Revi siting the issue of w hat the clause “at the time th e agreem entis m a d e ” in the A ct means, w e c oncl ude t hat w e mustdi sag re e w it h L i g ht ’s v iew thata unilate ra l c o n t ra c tcan ne v er me et th e requireme nts of the Act becau se suc h a c ontract i s n o t i mmediat ely enforc eabl e w hen made. Sect ion 15 .50 state s that“a cov ena nt n o tt o c om pet e is enforcea ble if it is anci ll ar y to or par t of an o th e rw is e enforc eabl e ag re ement atthe ti me the ag re ement i s made

. . . .” Si mply readi ng the text, the c lau se “a t the ti me the ag re ement i s made ” can modify either “other w is e enfor ceabl e ag re ement” or “a nci ll ar y to o r p a rt o f .”

. . . W e now co ncl ude, cont ra ry

to Light , t hat t he cov enant need on ly

be “ anci ll ar

y to or par t of” the a g re ement atthe ti me the ag re ement w as made. Acc ordin g ly , a uni lat eral cont ra ct form e d wh en th e employ er

per forms a p romis e tha t w as il lus or y w hen made can sat is fy the re q uirements of the A ct.
Shes hunoff

, 209 S.W .3d a t 651

. The Ag re ement ex ecut ed by Shoreli ne and Mc Gaug hey i s s imi lar

i n al l mater ial aspects to t he c o n tr a ct consi dered i n Shes hunoff

. See i d. As i n Shes hunoff

, t he employ ment rela ti onshi p here w as at- w il l, and the e mploy ee promis ed notto dis cl ose the employ er ’s co nfidentia l infor mati on. See i d. M cGau ghey’ s prom ise notto disclose Shoreli ne’ s c onfidenti al infor mati on, t houg h notenforc eabl e w hen made, co nst it uted an off er for a uni lat eral cont ra ct w hic h Shorel ine had the opti on to accept. Sh oreli ne ac cept ed Mc Gaug hey ’s offer

by per forming —th at i s, by supply ing M cGa ug hey w it h c onfidenti al10

i nfo r m a t i o n — a n d s o a u n i l a t e ra l c o n t ra c tw a s fo r m e d u n d e r w h i c h M c G a u g h e y

b ec am e bound byhis pro mis e notto dis cl ose that infor mati on. See Li ght , 883 S.W .2d a t 645 n.6. Unde r Shes hunoff

, such a u nilate ral c ont ract const itute s an “oth erw ise enforcea ble
a gre e m e n t” su ff ic ien t t o s uppor t an acc ompany ing non- compet e c ov enant. See Shes hunoff

, 209 S.W .3d a t 651 ; T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15 .50 (a). Mc Gaug hey

denies that he w as g iv en confidenti al infor mati on dur ing the course of his empl oy ment, and c lai ms t h a t h is obl ig ati on notto dis cl ose suc h i nformati on w as therefore ne v er tr ig g ered. W e find thi s cl aim to be w it hout meri t. R ian Gr is emer, presi dent of Shoreli ne, t est ified at the t emporar y i nju nct ion hear ing th a t “[ i] mmediat ely upon employ ment, [M cGa ug hey] w as prov ide d ac ces s t o a ll of our files and all i nformati on regarding our accou nts, pricing , and custom er nee ds, an d referen ces, all dat a w e ha v e in
our off ic e.” G ri semer

furth er tes ti fied th at: Ov er the las t .

. . 16 y ears, w e hav e accumul ated notes that rela te t o produce rs thatw e de a l w it h s peci fical ly , ac count s t hat M r. M cGa ug hey ma naged in our of

f ice. W e call these wo rkin g f iles. W e ha v e an ACT d a t a b a s e wh e re we e n t e r sp e c if ic in fo rm a t io n a b o u t c o n ve rs a t io n s we h a ve w it h produce rs
. W e hav e spre adshe ets w here .
. . M cGa ug hey w oul d rev iew his commiss ion s earn ed of f of each o f these acc ounts sh ow ing ex actdol lar m a rg in s o f

f o f e a c h a n d e ve ry a c c o u n tt h a th e m a n a ge d fo r t h e co m p a n y. W e had produce r files th a t c ontai ned al l of the c ontractsp eci fics and the cont ra cts thems elv es. W e had mark et pr ic ing w hic h Mr . M cGa ug hey pl ay ed a role i n, too, as far

as sell ing gas to our

m ar ket s a nd atw hat p ri ce that g as w as. He notonly b o u gh tgas, bu t he also marke ted g as on some of these acc ounts . So, he had acc ess to—and h ad to us e to per form hi s j ob[—]al l of thi s i nformati on. Mc Gaug hey

i s c orre ct i n hi s a ss erti on th at muc h of the infor mati on th at he w as pro vide d wa s p ubl ic ly

av ail abl e. For

ex ample, the names and add re ss es of natural g as produce rs i s a matte r of publi c record i n Tex as. H o wever, t he ev ide nce adduc ed atthe temporar

y i nju nct ion hear ing est abl is hed that Mc Gaug hey w as prov ide d w it h marg in and pr ic ing i nformati on, a s w ell as note s c ompil ed by Shoreli ne’ s e mploy ees and s u p p lier histories. None of

this informa tion is pub licly av ailable , and the disse min ation of any of th isW e no t e t hat , al t hough t hi s i nf or m at i on p r ov i ded t o M cG aughe y was con si der ed “ conf i dent i al 3 i nf or m at i on” and “ t r ade secr et s” und er t he d ef i ni t i ons p r ov i ded i n t he Agr eem ent , t hi s doe s not m ean t hat t hey w e r e in f a c t c o n f id e n tia l o r t r a d e s e c r e ts

. I n a c tu a lity, t h e d e f in itio n s p r o v id e d in th e A g r e e m e n t w e r e o v e r ly br oad and i ncl uded pi eces o fi nf or m at i on t hat ar e pu bl i cl y av ai l abl e, such as t he nam es an d ad dr esses o fgas pr oducer s.

I t i s nev er t hel ess ap par ent f r om ourr ev i ew oft he re c ord t hat m uch o ft he i nf or m at i on p r ov i ded by S h o r e lin e to M c G a u g h e y in th e c o u r s e o fh is e m p lo ym e n t— s u c h a s c e r ta in p r ic in g in f o r m a tio n , p r o f it m a r g in i nf or m at i on a nd su ppl i er hi st or y — was i n f act conf i dent i al and m et t he def i ni t i on oft r ade secr et as pr ov i ded b y th e T e x a s S u p re m e C o u rt. See I n r e Bass , 113 S. W

. 3d 735, 739 ( T ex. 2003) ( or i g. pr oceedi ng) ( def i ni ng a t r ade secr et as “ any fo r m ul a, pat t er n or devi ce or com pi l at i on ofi nf or m at i on whi ch i s used i n on e’ s busi ness an d p res en t s an op po rt un i t y t o o btai n a n a dva ntag e o ver c om pe t i t ors , w ho do no t k no w or us e i t

. ”)

. M ore ove r, t hi s i nf or m at i on d i d no t l ose i t s nat ur e as t r ade secr et s because Shor el i ne nev er i nst r uct ed o r app r ov ed o ft he d i s s e m i n a ti o n o f s u c h i n fo rm a ti o n
. S ee C R C -E v an s P i pe li ne Int ’ l, Inc

. v. M y ers , 927 S. W

. 2d 259, 266 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 199 6, no wr i t ) ( st at i ng t hat “ [ i ] nf or m at i on ot her wi se qual i f y i ng as a t r ade secr et m ay l os e i t s ‘ s ec ret ’ stat us w he n d i s c l os ed t o o t he rs w i t h t he em pl oy er’ s bl es s i ng ”)

. 11 infor mat i o n w o u l d h a v e d a ma g e d S h o re l i n e ’ s b u s i n e s s
. U s i n g t h e t e r mi n o l o g y o f Light 3 and Shes hunoff

, Sho re li ne ac cept ed M cGa ug hey ’s offer to not d is cl ose confide nti al infor mati on by

prov idi ng M cGa ug hey w it h ac ces s t o the se pie ces of infor mati on. See Shes hunoff

, 209 S.W .3d a t 651

. W e find, bas ed on the e v ide nce adduc ed atthe temporar y i nju nct ion hear ing , t hat there w as an “ other

w is e enforc eabl e ag re ement” as r e qui re d by se cti on 15. 50( a)

. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15 .50 (a). Tha t the “othe rw ise enforcea ble ag reem ent ” did notbeco me enforcea ble un til some time a f ter the Agreem entw as execute d is imma terial. See S heshu noff

, 209 S.W .3d at 651. O ur att enti on next t ur ns to w hether the non- compet e cov enant w as “a nci ll ar

y to or par t of” the “ other

w is e enforc eabl e ag re ement.” ii. “A ncill ary

To Or Part Of” In orde r fo r a non-com pet e covenan t t o b e “ a n c illary to or part of” the oth erw ise enforc eabl e ag reement, tw o c ondi ti ons must be met: ( 1) the cons ide ra ti on g iv en by the
em ployer in the oth erw ise enforcea ble ag reem entmustg iv e rise to the emp loyer’ s interest in re strain ing the employ ee from c ompeti ng ; and ( 2) the cov enant must be des ig ned t o enforce the emp loyee’s conside ration or return prom ise in the o the rw ise enforcea ble ag re ement. Shes hunoff , 209 S.W .3d a t 648 -4 9; Light , 883 S.W .2d at 647. T o satisf y this tes t, the “ o th e rwise enforc eabl e ag re ement” mustg iv e r is e to an “ int erestw orthy ofT he em pl oy er obl i gat i on t o pr ov i de i ni t i al t r ai ni ng i n Li ght di d no t dep end on whet her t he e m pl oy ee 4 w a s s ti l l e m p l o y e d

. See Li ght v. C ent el

C el l ular C o. of Tex. , 883 S. W

. 2d 6 42, 646 ( T ex. 199 4) ( “ Even i f[ t he em pl oy ee] had r esi gned or been f i r ed af t er t hi s agr eem ent was exe cut ed, [ t he e m pl oy er ] woul d st i l l hav e be en req ui red t o p rovi de t he i ni t i al t rai ni ng
. ”)

. 12 protec ti on” bya c ov enant not t o c ompete. Shes hunoff , 209 S.W .3d a t 648 -4 9. Ex amples of such leg it imat e, protec tabl e int erest s inc lud e busi ness g oodw il l, trade s ecrets , and othe r confide nti al or

propr iet ar

y i nformati on. Id. In Light , the court iden tif ied th ree prom ises tha t w ere no t illusory and therefore w ere capa ble of

serv in g a s conside ration for an “oth erw ise enforcea ble agreem ent .” Tho se promis es w ere: (1 ) the e mploy er ’s promis e to prov ide “in it ial

. . . spe ci ali z ed train ing ” to t he employ ee; ( 2) the employ ee’ s p ro mis e to prov ide 14 d ay s n o ti ce t o the empl oy er to 4 term inate emp loyment ; and (3) the em ployee’s prom ise to provid e a n inv ent oryof all employ er-o w n e d proper ty upon ter minat ion

. 883 S. W .2d a t 645 -4 6. Nev erthel ess , t he
cour t r ule d tha t t he non- compet e c ov e n a n t that acc ompani ed th ese promis es w as unenforc eabl e bec ause “[w]hi le [the employ er ’s ] consi derati on (the promis e to train ) mig ht inv olv e confide nti al or propr iet ar y infor mati on, t he c ov enant not t o c ompete i s n ot de si g ned to e n f o rc e a ny of

[the emp loyee’s] return prom ises in the o the rw ise enforcea ble agreem ent .” Id. at 647. As su ch, the cov enant w as n o t “a nci ll ar y to or par t of” an oth erw ise enforcea ble ag reem ent und er the tw o-pron g test and so w as u n enforcea ble under the Act

. Se e T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15. 50( a)

. On t he ot her

hand, the non- compete c o venan t i n Shes hunoff w as found to be enforc eabl e. 209 S. W .3d a t 6 5 7

. T h a t is bec ause, unl ik e i n Light , the emp loyee in Shes hunoff

made a promis e not to dis cl ose the c ompany ’s co nfidenti al infor mati on. Id. at 649 . Althou gh that pro m is e wa s une nforcea ble w hen the agreem entw as signed, it became enforc eabl e as so on as the employ er provi ded c onfidenti al infor mati on to the employ ee, a nd th erefore be came t he “ other w is e enforc eab l e a g re e me n t ” a s re q u i re d under the s tatut e. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15 .50 (a). M oreo v e r, t his newly enforc eabl e ag re ement g ave ris e t o an “i nterestw orthy of protec ti on” by

a no n- compet eM cG aughe y not es t hat , unl i k e i n t he p r esent case, t he S h e s h u n o ff em pl oy m ent cont r act r equi r ed 5 t he em pl oy er t o pr ov i de t o t he e m pl oy ee wi t h “ access t o cer t ai n con f i dent i al and pr opr i et ar y i nf or m at i on a nd m ateri al s b el on gi ng to E m pl oy er.
. . . ” Al ex Sheshunof f M gm t

. Ser vs. , L. P. v. John son , 209 S. W

. 3d 6 44, 647 ( T ex. 200 6)

. T hi s pr om i se was i l l usor y , howev er , because t he e m pl oy er coul d av oi d pe r f or m ance si m pl y by t erm i nat i ng em pl oy m ent

. Fur t her , t hi s pr om i se was not of t he t y pe t hat coul d be consi der ed an off er f or a un i l ateral co ntr ac t t ha t c ou l d be ac c ep t ed by t he pe rform an c e of t he prom i s ee
. T he refore , i t co ul d n ot ha ve fo rm e d th e b a s i s o f a n “ o th e rw i s e e n fo rc e a b l e a g re e m e n t” c a p a b l e o f s u s ta i n i n g a n o n -c o m p e te c o v e n a n t. See i d. at 650

.

“ [ Em pl oy er ’ s] non - i l l usor y pr om i se t o gi v e at l east t wo w eek’ s not i ce be f or e t er m i nat i ng [ em pl oy ee] 6 do es n ot g i ve ri s e t o i t s i nteres t i n res t rai ni ng [em pl oy ee ] fr om co m pe t i ng
. ” S h e s h u n o ff , 209 S. W

. 3d a t 650

. 13 covenan t beca use it prot ecte d “conf iden tial or proprieta ry informa tion. ” Shes hunoff , 209 S.W .3d a t 657 ; Lig ht , 883 S.W .2d a t 647 ; see DeS anti s v . Wackenh ut C or

p. , 793 S.W .2d 670 , 682 (Te x
. 199 0) (stating tha t conf iden tial informa tion is an ex am ple o f a n “i n terest
w orthy of

protect ion” by a covenan t notto com pet e). In t he i nst ant cas e, Mc Gaug hey , l ik e the empl oy er i n Shes hunoff

, ma de a n express promis e notto dis cl ose his employ er ’s confidenti al infor mati on. 209 S. W .3d a t 647

. The Ag re ement’ s n on- dis cl osure prov is ion s b ecame enforc eab le i mmediat ely upon the provisi on o f

conf iden tial inf o rm ation byShore line to McGau ghey, and this “othe rw ise enforc eabl e ag re ement” di re ctl y g av e r is e to an “ int erestw orthy of protec ti on” by

the noncompet e co ven ant. As su ch, the tw o- prong tes t el uci dated in Light and Shes hunoff

is sat is fied. Se e Shes hunoff , 209 S.W .3d a t 649 ; Light , 883 S.W .2d a t 647

. 5 Mc Gaug h e y

arg ues that his Ag re ement i s d is ti ng uis habl e from t he empl oy ment cont ra ct cons ide re d i n Shes hunoff i n tha t t he l atter

co ntai ned a p ro v is ion req uir ing the employ er

to g iv e the empl oy ee not ic e of termi nati on (unl ess the ter minat ion st emmed from
em ployee misco ndu ct) or to pay a specif ied fee. 209 S.W .3d a t6 4 6

. How ever, this difference i s immateri al to ou r anal y si s. A c ov enant not t o c ompete i s n ot de si g ned t o enforc e a n oti ce prov is ion

. Id. at 650; Light , 883 S.W .2d at 647 n.15 . As such, th e no tice prov is ion i n Shes hunoff coul d notsu ppor t a non- compet e c ov ena n t u n d e r the s econd prong of the t est

. 6 W e co n clu d e , b a se d on th e evid e n ce ad d u ce d at th e te m p o ra ry inj u n ct io n he a rin g, tha t t h e n o n -co mp ete cov ena nt w as “ancillary to or part of

an oth erw ise enforcea ble14

ag re ement” as req uired by the A ct. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15 .50 (a). Shoreli ne th erefore es tabl is hed a probabl e ri g ht t o reli ef on the meri ts w it h respect t o the
non- compet e c ov enant. See Butn aru , 84 S.W .3d a t 204

. 2. Enforce abili ty

of the Non- Solic itation Agreem ent T he n on-so licitation p rov isions of the Agreem entstate d as follows: 8. N on s ol i c i ta ti on o f Ac c ou nt s
. I co v en an t an d ag ree t ha t du r i ng my employ ment w it h the C ompany and for a per iod of t hree (3 ) y ears fol low ing the date that , for any

reason , I ce ased to be empl oy ed by the Compan y anyw here w it hin the Area, I sh all not, ex ceptas speci fical ly authori z ed bythe Compan y

i n w ri ti ng , anyw here [si c] w it hin the Area, c all on, cont actor so li ci t, direct ly or i ndi re ctl y , any

Ac countor

prospecti v e Ac countof the Compan y w it h w hom I hav e had Subs tanti al Con tac t dur ing my lasttw elv e (12) months o f em p lo yme n t with th e Co m p a n y, fo r th e pu rp o se of b u yin g, se lli n g, dev elo pin g , mar ket ing or promoting natu ra l g as or rela ted o r der iv ed hydrocarbon s or hy droca rbon by -produ cts.
9. Non soli ci tati on of Empl oy ees. I co v enant and ag re e tha t dur ing the c ourse of myempl oy ment w it h the C ompany and for a per iod of one ( 1) y ear i mmediat ely

thereafter, I w il l not e x ceptas sp eci fical ly auth or iz ed by

the Compan y

i n w ri ti ng , c all upon, soli ci t, rec ru it , or as si st others i n recr uit ing or sol ic it ati on, a ny

off ic er , empl oy ee, c onsul tant or ag ent o f the Company to lea v e the empl oy of, or

ter minat e the ir

as soc iat ion w it h, t he C ompany for a ny re ason. The Actdoes not, on i ts face, app ly to non- sol ic it ati on ag re ements

. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 15.50- .52. Shoreli ne urg es us to i nfer from thi s t hat n on- sol ic it ati on cla u se s s h o u l d be tre a te d di f fe re n tl y tha n no n -co m p e te co ven a n ts , c it in g Ruge n v. Inte ractive Busin ess Syste m s, Inc. , 864 S.W .2d 548 (Tex

. App.–D all as 1993, no w ri t) , t o suppo rti ts arg ument. In Rug en , t he tr ial co urt found a n o n -compete ag re ement t o be unenforc eabl e, y et i t nev erthel ess g ra nted a temporar y inj unct ion enj oin ing the e mploy ee from so li ci ti ng or transacti ng busi ness w it h the empl oy er ’s cu sto mers bec ause itfound that the employ er ’s confide nti al infor mati on w as enti tl ed to protec ti on. Id. at 550. T he D all as Cou rtof Appeal s a ff ir med the jud g ment, findi n g t h a t the tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n order ing the temporar y i nju nct ion despi te findi ng the n on- compet e c ov enant to be unenfor ceabl e. Id. at 553. D espi te S horeli ne’ s c lai ms, how ev er , t he Rug en court did15

not t re at a non-so lic it a tion c lau se differentl y from a non- compet e c ov enant. I n fact, the par ti es in Rug en did notente r into a sepa rate no n-solicitatio n a greem ent ; the only cont ra ctu al prov is ion at is sue w as a non- compet e c ov enant. Id. at 550 . Shoreline ’s claim that no n - s o l i c i t a t i o n ag re ements sh oul d be treated differentl y from non -c ompete c ov enants is not persuas iv e. Ins tead, non-s oli ci tati on agreements are subj ectto the s ame anal y si s a s c ov enants not t o c ompete. See Mi ller Paper

C o. v . R ober ts Paper C o. , 9 0 1 S

. W

. 2 d 5 9 3 , 6 0 0 (T e x. App .–A ma rill o 19 95, no w rit) (stating that“other tha n the m onike r assigned it, n oth ing truly differenti ates the [non- sol ic it ati on] promi se at bar from a cov enant not t o c ompete” ). The pur pose and effect of a non -s oli ci tati on ag re ement pa ra ll el thos e i nherent i n a n oncompet e cov enant. Id. at 59 9. Both cont ain g eog ra phi c a nd durati onal parameters, and b o th ef fecti v ely rest ri ct compet it ion

. Id. at 599- 600; see T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15.05( a)

. A n on- sol ic it ati on ag re ement i s s uff ic ien tl y anal og ous to a cov enant not t o compet e s uch that the p ro v is ion s o f the Ac t must apply f ull y to suc h ag re ements

. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15 .50 (a). Therefore, i n accordance w it h our anal y si s a bov e w it h respect t o the non- compet e cov enant, w e c oncl ude t hat S horeli ne establ is hed a probabl e ri g ht t o reli ef w it h respect t o the n on- sol ic it ati on ag re ement. See Butn aru , 84 S.W .3d a t 204

. 3. Enforce abili ty

of the Non- Discl osure Agreem ent T he n on-d isclosure provisions of the Agreem entstate d as follows: 4. N on di s c l os ure or

Us e of Tr ad e Se c ret s . Du r i ng the c ou rs e of m y employ ment w it h the Compan y and for so lon g thereafter as the p e rt ine nt inf or ma ti on o r

d oc um en ta ti on rem ai ns t rad e s ec ret s o f t he C om pa ny , I w ill not, direct ly

or i ndi re ctl y , us e, di sc los e or di ss eminat e to any

othe r person, org ani z ati on or

enti ty , or

othe rw is e empl o y, any trade s ecrets of the Com pan y

(w het her or n ot such trade se crets are in w ritten or tan gible fo rm), e xc e p ta s sp e c if ic a ll y a u t h o ri ze d in wri t in g b y t h e Co m p a n y. 5. Non dis cl osure or

U se of Confidential Informati on. Dur ing the course of myempl oy ment w it h the Company and thereafter, I w il l not, ex cept16

as spe cif ically

auth oriz ed by the Com pan y in w riting, directly or indirectly, ( i) use for my

o w n g a i n , o r

( i i ) d i s c l o s e o r

d i s s e mi n a t e t o a n y

o t h e r p e rson, o rg ani z ati on or

enti ty , or

othe rw is e empl oy , any C onfidenti al Informati on, unle ss su ch Conf iden tial Informa tion is required to be prod uced bymyself in re spo n se to a v ali d order , s ummons, or su bpoena is sued by

a c our t or admini strati v e ag ency

of c o m petentj ur is dicti on. In t he ev ent I recei v e any order , s ummons, or

su bpoena is sued by

a cour t or a dmini strati v e ag ency to prod uce Con f iden tial Informa tion, I w ill prom ptly not if y the Com pan y

of such subpo ena, summons or order to prov ide the Compan y the oppor

tuni ty to protec t i ts int erest s i n s uch Con fidenti al Informati on. Non -d is cl osure ag re ements are different than non-c ompete c ov enants

. Zep Mf g. Co. v. Harthco ck , 824 S.W .2d 6 54, 6 63 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1992, no w ri t) (aff ir ming the tr ial
cour t’ s s ummary

judg ment enfor ci ng a non- dis cl osure c lau se despi te be ing ac compani ed b y a n unenfor ceabl e non- compet e c ov enant) ; s ee a l s o C R C

- Ev

an s P i pe l i ne Int ’ l , In c
. v. Myers , 927 S.W .2d 259, 265 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 199 6, no w ri t) ( aff ir ming the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of temporar y i nju nct ion enforc ing non- dis cl osure ag re ement, despi te t he fact th at such agreeme nts do not restrain trade, beca use trial cou rt could ha v e reaso nab ly foun d tha t forme r emp loyees did notlearn an y trade se crets during the co ur s e o f their employ ment)

. A non- dis cl osure ag re ement may be e nforce abl e ev en i f a cov enant not t o compet e is not. TomJa m es , 109 S.W .3d a t 888 ; CR C- Evan s , 927 S.W .2d a t 265

. That is bec ause, w hil e non- compet e c ov enants are c onsi dered restra in ts of trade, nondis cl osure ag re ements are not

. CR C- Evan s , 927 S.W .2d a t 265 ; Zep , 824 S.W .2d a t 663

. Non -d is cl osure ag re ements do n ot ne ces sar il y rest ri ct a former

empl oy ee’ s a b ili ty

to
co m p e te w it h th e fo rm e r e m p lo yer, n o r d o th e y p ro h ib it th e fo rm e r em p lo yee f ro m us in g, in com pet ition w ith the forme r em ployer, the general know ledge, ski ll, and e xp e ri e n ce acq uired in former

empl oy er
. Zep , 824 S.W .2d at 663. Rat her , such ag re ements prev ent onl y the dis cl osure of trade s e cre ts and confide nti al infor mati on ac q uired by the former employ ee. Id. McGaughe y

d id nota ssert any d efense to the enforcea bility of the no n-disclosu re a gre e ments other

than thatthey

are i mpermi ss ibl e rest ra int s o f trad e under the Act

. How ever, the non -disclosure ag reem entat issue he re is not a “restraint of trade” an d soW e n o te th a t t h e d e f in itio n o f“ C o n f i d e n tia l In f o r m a tio n ” c o n ta in e d in th e A g r e e m e n t e x p r e s s ly 7 i ncl uded “ t r ade s ec ret s ” a nd al so i ncl uded t he f ol l owi ng st at em ent : “ I acknowl edge and agr ee t hat t he C onf i dent i al I nf or m at i on o ft he Com pany d es c ri be d abov e con st i t ut es an d com pr i ses t r ade secr et s of t he C om pany and wi l l at al l t i m es be t r eat ed b y m y sel fas such. ” As di scussed abov e, howev er , si m pl y beca use t he Agr eem ent def i ned a cer t ai n pi ece o fi nf or m at i on a s “ conf i dent i al ” ora “ t r ade secr et ” does not m ean i t was i n fa c t c o n fid e n ti a l o r a tra d e s e c re t. S ti l l , M c G a u g h e y a s s e rts n o d e fe n s e , o n th i s a p p e a l , t o th e e n fo rc e a b i l i ty o f th e n o n -d i s c l o s u re p a ra g ra p h s o th e r t h a n c l a i m i n g th a t th e y a re re s tra i n ts o f tra d e b a rr e d b y th e C o v e n a n ts N ot t o Com pet e Act

. T her ef or e, Shor el i ne e st abl i shed a pr obabl e r i ght t o rel i ef w i t h r espect t o t he enf or cem ent of

t hese par agr aphs. 17 itdoes not come under the ru br icof

the Act

. See C RC -E vans , 927 S.W .2d a t 265 ; Zep , 824 S.W .2d at 663; T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15. 50( a)

. W e the re fore c oncl ude t hat Sho reline esta bl is h e d a prob able rig ht to relief w ith respe ct to the non -disclosure ag re ement. 7 C. Pr ob abl e Ir rep arab le I nj ur y Hav ing fou n d t hat S horeli ne es tabl is hed a probabl e r ig ht t o recov er y upon a final tr ial on t h e m e rits w it h respect t o al l of the c ontract ual prov is ion s a t i ss ue, w e tur n our atte ntion f inally to w het her Sho reline satisf ied the f inal elem entrequired for the issua nce o f a t e mp o ra r

y i n j u n c t i o n ; n a me l y , w h e t h e r S h o re l i n e fa c e d p ro b a b l e i mm i n e n ta nd ir re parabl e i nju ry

i f the i nju nct ion w ere noti ss ued. See Butn aru , 84 S.W .3d a t 204

. An ir re parabl e inj ur

y ex is ts if the par

ty i nju re d c annot suffici entl y be c ompensat ed in damag es or the amount of da mag es is immeas urabl e by pecun iar y st andards. Id. ( ci ti ng Cante en Corp. v. Repub lic of Tex. Props., Inc. , 773 S.W .2d 39 8 , 4 0 1 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1989, no w ri t) ). The cont ra ct prov is ion s at iss ue here “w il l not be enfor ced by an inj unct ion
w here the par

ty se eki ng the inj unct ion has fail ed to sh ow thatw it hout inj unct iv e re li ef he wil l suf fer irrepa rable injury for w hich he has no ade quate legal reme dy.” Rea ch Gr oup, L.L.C . v . An gel ina Gr oup , 173 S.W .3d 8 34, 8 37- 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2005, no p et.). How ever, the pu rpose of injunctive relief

is to halt w rongf u l acts thatare threa ten ed o r in the course of accom plish m e nt, rath er than to grantrelief against past act i o n a b l e w ro n g s o r t o p r e v e n t c o mm i s s i o n o f w ro n g s n o t i mm i n e n t l y t h re a t e ned. See Tex. He a lth Care Inf

o. Cou ncil v. Seto n Health Plan, In c. , 9 4 S

. W

. 3 d 8 4 1 , 8 5 3 (T e x. A p p
. –A u s t in 2 0 0 2 , p e t

. d e n ie d ). Al t h o u gh a n in ju n c t io n is a p re ve n t ive d e vic e , in ju n c t iveT hat sect i on st at ed a s f ol l ows: 8 I r ecogni z e and agr ee t hat t he a scer t ai nm ent of dam ages i n t he e v ent of by br each [ s i c ] o r v i o l a t i o n o f a n y c o v e n a n t o r u n d e r t a ki n g c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s Ag r e e m e nt woul d be di ffi c ul t , i f no t i m po s s i bl e, an d fu rt he r t ha t t he vari ou s ri gh t s an d d uti es cre ated he reu nd er are ext r aor di nar y and uni que so t hat t he C om pany wi l l suff er i r r epar abl e i nj ur y t hat ca nnot adequ at el y be com pensat ed b y m onet ar y dam ages i n t he ev ent ofm y br each or v i ol at i on o f a n y c o v e n a n t o r u n d e rta k i n g c o n ta i n e d i n th i s A g re e m e n t. 18 re li ef is improper w hen the par ty seek ing the inj unct ion has mere fear or apprehens ion of the p oss ibi li ty

of inj ur y
. Har b o r P e rf usion , Inc. v. Floyd , 4 5 S

. W

. 3 d 7 1 3 , 7 1 6 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 2001 , no pe t.). Shoreli ne not ed at the temporar y inj unct ion hear ing that the A g re ement s ig ned by McGaughe y

include d a sectio n en titled “Reme dies” w hich spe cif ically state d tha t mo net ary damag es w oul d be ins uff ic ien t t o c ompensat e for any bre a ch o r v iol ati on of the Ag re e me n t ’ s p ro v i s i o n s
. H o w e v e r , S h o re l i n e h a s p o i n t e d u s t o n o T e x a s c a s e h o l din g 8 that an ag re ement s uch as thi s e sta bli shes , for inj unct ion pur poses , t hat remedie s at l aw
w il l be i nadeq uate or

that ir re parabl e inj ur

y w il l neces sar il y be suffered. See Wri ght , 137 S.W .3d a t 294

. Mo re ov er , as di sc uss ed abov e, S horeli ne produce d no ev ide nce that Mc Gaug hey had actu a lly br e a ch e d or vio la te d an y cove n a n t o r un d e rt a kin g co n ta in e d in th e Agre e m e n t,
or ev en th at M cGa ug hey had threatened to breach or vi ola te anysuch under tak ing s. At the tem pora ry

injunctio n he aring, Grisemer test if ied as follows: Q. Now , i f the C o u rt i n thi s p arti cul ar hear ing w ere notto enforc e the prov is ion s, the Non- Compet e prov is ion s a s w e’v e as ked the C our t t o enforce in pa ragraph seven and paragraph e ig ht, a nd Chu ck Mc G a ughey w ould be allowed to vi olate the pro v isions of this agreem ent , in y our op inion, w ould Shore line Gas be irrepu tab ly [sic] inj ured?
A. Y es, w e w oul d. Q. And ho w

i s t hat i n y our

opi nio n?
A. W ell , I su ppose he w oul d be free to v iol ate the enti re ag re ement an d19 tak e a l l t h e b u s i n e s s a w a y fro m u s t h a t w e s p e n t s o ma n yy ear s t o dev elo p by

under cutt ing [sic ] our pri ci ng and tak ing adv antag e of the re lat ion sh i p s t h a th a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d o v e r t h e y e a rs
. A n d I t h i nk there w oul d be some j obs los t. Q. If Mr . McGaughe y w ere in fact to v iolate this agreeme nt an d solicit cus tomers, or

co mpete w it h Shoreli ne Gas with respect t o the cus tomers t hat i t had si g nific ant respon si bil ity ov er , w oul d i t create a probl em i n ter ms of dete rmi nin g ex act ly w hat d amag e Shoreli ne Ga s w ou l d suffer ? W ou l d th ere be a ny k i nd o f prac ti c ab l e prob l em s ass oci ated w it h tha t?
A. There w oul d. W e’d hav e to prov e the damag es and t hen recov er the damag es. The c oncer n w oul d be that M r. McG aug hey w oul d notbe capa ble of

f inan cially

paying back the dam ages. On cross-examina tion, Griseme r also testif ied as follows: Q. W hen d id Mr . McGaughey tell y ou h e w as going to g o set up in compet it ion w it h y ou?
A. He did not tel l me that

. Q. Oka y
. W hen di d he tel l y ou he w as g oin g to dis cl ose y our se crets to s o m e b o d y o u t s id e t h e Co m p a n y?
A. He did not tel l me that

. The record, i ncl udi ng thi s t est imony , reflect s o nly thatSh o reli ne had a fear or apprehens ion of

the poss ibi li ty

of inj ur y
. See Har

bor Per fus ion , 45 S. W .3d at 716 . Th is is insuf f icient to esta blish a prob ability of irrepa rable injury as w ould supp ort a tem pora ry inj unct ion

. Id. Beca use w e mustuphol d the tr ial co u rt ’s jud g ment on any g ro unds suppo rt ed by

the re cord, see Dav

is, 571 S.W .2d at 862 , w e con clude thatthe trial court did notabu se its d iscretion in den y ing Sh oreline ’s requestfor t em pora ry injunctio n w ith respe ct to an y of the th ree con tractu al provisi ons a t issue. Sho reline’s f irst, second , and thirdW e ne ed n ot r each Shor el i ne’ s fou rt h i ssue ch al l engi ng t he t r i al cour t ’ s f ai l ur e t o r ef or m t he n on- 9 c om pet e, non - sol i ci t at i on, and non - di scl osur e pr ov i si ons o ft he Agr eem ent und er sect i on 1 5. 51( c) of t he b u s i n e s s a n d c o m m e rc e c o d e
. See T EX
. B US

. & C OM

. C OD E A NN
. § 15. 51( c)

. T hat i s beca use, as di scussed a b o v e , w e r e v ie w th e tr ia l c o u r t’s s ta te m e n t t h a t t h e p r o v is io n s a t is s u e a r e u n e n f o r c e a b le o n ly in s o f a r a s it a ff e c ts o n e o r m o re o f th e e l e m e n ts r e q u i re d f o r a te m p o ra ry i n ju n c ti o n
. See Butnaru v. Ford Mot or C o. , 84 S

. W

. 3d 1 98 , 2 04 (T ex
. 20 02 ); Tom Jam es of D al las, I nc. v. C obb , 109 S. W

. 3d 877, 883 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.); see a lso T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. W het her t he t r i al cour t er r ed i n f ai l i ng t o r ef or m t hose pr ov i si ons does not aff ect ourana l y si s of whet her Shor el i ne e st abl i shed a cause ofact i on, a pr obabl e r i ght t o r el i ef , or p ro b a b l e i m m i n e n t a n d i rr e p a ra b l e i n ju ry. B utna ru , 84 S. W

. 3d a t 204

. 20 is sues are the re fore ov er ru led

. 9 IV. C ONCL US I ON V ie win g t h e e vid e n c e i n t h e l i g h tm o s tfa vo ra b le t o t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s o rd e r, we conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n deny ing Shoreli ne’ s a ppl ic ati on for a temporar

y i nju nct ion

. See G onzale z , 631 S.W .2d at 195. Acc ordin g ly , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

________ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 17t h day

of Apr il , 200 8.