Source: http://library.nevadalaw.info/law_library/Misappropriation%20Of%20Trade%20Secrets%20Violation%20Of%20Nevada%20Uniform%20Trade%20Secret%20Act.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:04:15+00:00

Document:
NRS Chapter 600A; Kaldi v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 117 Nev. 273, 283-84, 21 P.3d 16, 23 (2001); Frantz v. Johnson, 116 Nev. 455, 466, 999 P.2d 351, 358 (2000) (a customer list can be a trade secret when extremely confidential and where the list was secret and guarded, where the list was missing after an employee had access to the list which went missing after the employee left his employment, then provided customers with “more competitive pricing”); Whitehead v. Nev. Com'n on Judicial Discipline, 110 Nev. 874, 904 n. 6, 878 P.2d 913, 932 (1994); 12 AMJUR POF 3d 711.
Even without a non-disclosure agreement, confidential information obtained by an employee during employment by reason of his or her position cannot be used or disclosed to the detriment of the employer. “An employee is obligated not to reveal employer's confidential information during employment and after termination of employment." 27 Am. Jur. 2d Employment Relationship § 224. Nevada codified the Uniform Trade Secret Act (“UTSA” or “NUTSA”) at NRS 600A et. seq. There is a split of authority whether any confidential information is protected if it is not covered by NUTSA. These materials will treat all protected confidential commercial information as being contained in NUTSA and all others to be unprotected information.
At termination of employment, an employee who misuses confidential information (customer lists, formulas, etc.), is precluded from using the information and is required to return the materials to the employer. 27 Am. Jur. 2d Employment Relationship § 226 (citing NCH Corp. v. Broyles, 749 F.2d 247 (5th Cir. 1985); Advanced Magnification Instruments, Ltd. v. Minutemen Optical Corp., 522 N.Y.S.2d 287, 135 A.D.2d 889 (3d Dept. 1987); Gonzales v. Zamora, 791 S.W.2d 258 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1990)). An employer, therefore, at common law, has some protection against disclosure of confidential information even without a valid non-disclosure agreement. “However, an employee can use to his or her own advantage all the skills and knowledge commonly used in the trade that the employee acquired during the employee's tenure of employment.” Id. (citing Serv. Ctr. of Chicago, Inc. v. Minogue, 180 Ill.App.3d 447, 535 N.E.2d 1132 (1989)).
How Does Information Become a Protected Trade Secret?
Confidential business information automatically becomes protected in the law once the statutory definition in NRS 600A.030 is met. There is no requirement that the parties expressly identify the information as a “trade secret”. Should a dispute arise as to the use of the information, determining whether the information used is protected is a matter of applying the statutory definition as a question of fact. Frantz v. Johnson, 116 Nev. 455, 465 n. 4, 999 P.2d 351, 358 n. 4 (2000). Courts may consider, however, such factors as: (1) the extent to which the information is ascertainable from sources outside the business and the ease with which it can be obtained; (2) whether the information was confidential or secret or was treated as such by the business; and (3) the employee’s knowledge of the confidential information and whether the same was known by competitors. Id., 116 Nev. at 467, 999 P.2d at 358-59. The business is presumed to make reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of information that is marked “Confidential” or “Private” in a reasonably noticeable manner. This presumption may only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the owner did not take reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the information. NRS 600A.032.
How Does a Party Prosecute an Action for Misappropriation of a Trade Secret?
In Frantz, the Nevada Supreme Court found misappropriation of trade secrets based on the fact that: (l) lists containing information were missing after the former employee left the job; (2) the former employee contacted the plaintiff's customers to offer "more competitive pricing;" and (3) the former employee's phone records and other evidence indicated calls to plaintiff's customers. As a result, the former employee was liable for misappropriation of trade secrets. The Court further found that the competitor had misappropriated trade secrets when the competitor hired the former employee, announced that competitor intended to compete against plaintiff by taking all of plaintiff's customers, and the competitor hired employees from other competitive companies and asked them to use their knowledge about their former employers' pricing structure and customer base. Id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 224
 § 226
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.