Opinion ID: 2371423
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acquisition of a Trade Secret by Improper Means

Text: The Circuit Court was persuaded that the evidence was sufficient that LeJeune had acquired trade secrets by improper means. Both parties agree that LeJeune possessed documents and files belonging to Coinco, and we determined that several of these documents (i.e., the budgeting software, Specialty Markets Strategic Plan, pricing and cost documents, and MC2600 and Bill Pro Validator specifications) qualified as trade secrets. MUTSA states that a trade secret is acquired by improper means when it has been acquired by theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. Section 11-1201(b) of MUTSA. The Court of Special Appeals' opinion in Bond v. PolyCycle, 127 Md.App. 365, 732 A.2d 970 (1999) is instructive here. Bond, the former engineer of a plastic recycling company, on the evening prior to resigning, took all of the work product that he had done in the preceding two years on improving [the company's technology], placed it on a floppy disc, [and] then erased it from the company computers. Id. at 377, 732 A.2d at 976. Because this technology was a trade secret belonging to the company, Bond did not have authority to take it. The court concluded, Without authority from PolyCycle, [Bond's] taking of its computer files relating to the process constitutes theft, and therefore a misappropriation under [MUTSA]. Id. at 379, 732 A.2d at 977. The engineer's acquisition of the technology in Bond occurred under circumstances similar to those before us in the present case. When Bond took the technology from PolyCycle and erased it from the company's computers, he took possession of trade secrets without the company's authorization. Similarly, Coinco did not give LeJeune permission to transfer trade secrets from the company laptop to a CD. In an attempt to justify his actions, LeJeune stated that he transferred the My Documents folder from the company laptop to retain personal files, such as wedding photographs, and in the process, captured numerous Coinco documents. Coinco's expert testified, however, that LeJeune did not download only the My Documents folder, but he also transferred selected, specific Coinco files containing trade secrets. Considering this evidence, the trial judge apparently did not believe LeJeune's version of the events, and we see no reason here to upset the fact-finder's credibility determination. LeJeune argues that he did not acquire the trade secrets improperly because Coinco provided the documents and had no procedure in place for collecting them after an employee left the company. In support of this contention, LeJeune relies on Diamond, 852 F.Supp. at 412, in which the defendant, after she left her employment, retained certain company files and documents that the company had sent to her home. The company, T. Rowe Price, argued that this conduct amounted to misappropriation under MUTSA, but the court disagreed, holding that the files did not constitute trade secrets. Id. at 412. Judge Legg noted that, even if trade secrets were at issue, T. Rowe Price allowed [the defendant] to work at home, regularly sent documents to her home, and cannot now complain that her possession of these documents violates [MUTSA]. Id. at 412 n. 193. LeJeune's argument misses the mark because the circumstances in Diamond differ from those in the present case. In this case, unlike in Diamond, the trial court found and we agree that the information at issue is sensitive trade secret information. Moreover, LeJeune did not merely hold on to documents that had been sent to his home and then refuse to return them, as was the case in Diamond. Rather, on the last day of his employment, LeJeune selected specific, confidential Coinco documents and actively transferred them from the Coinco laptop to a CD that he intended to keep for his personal use. After transferring the files, LeJeune then erased over four hundred files from the laptop. This suggests that LeJeune was attempting to hide his conduct and was aware that transferring the files was improper. LeJeune again demonstrated an intent to hide his possession of trade secrets when he told his supervisor that everything had been returned, although numerous hard-copy trade secrets remained in LeJeune's possession. The evidence in this case is sufficient to support the Circuit Court's finding that LeJeune acquired Coinco's trade secrets by improper means.