Opinion ID: 151632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of Botticella's Responsibilities at Hostess

Text: Botticella next contends that the District Court erred by determining the probability that Botticella would disclose trade secrets while working at Hostess without requiring Bimbo to provide more detailed evidence of Botticella's anticipated responsibilities at Hostess. The record before the District Court contained little evidence in this regard apart from what could be inferred from Botticella's compensation package at Hostess and his title as the Vice President of Baking Operations for the eastern region. [14] Nevertheless the District Court concluded that Botticella's prospective position at Hostess was substantially similar to his former position at Bimbo, noting that the Hostess position was an executive level position, with a salary comparable to his salary at Bimbo. Bimbo Bakeries, 2010 WL 571774, at . We agree that the record supports the conclusion that in his new position at Hostess, Botticella would have broad oversight over bakery operations, just as he had at Bimbo. Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by preliminarily determining that the Bimbo and Hostess positions were substantially similar.