Opinion ID: 1747999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Postemployment confidentiality agreement.

Text: Turning to the merits, we first consider whether the trial court erred in concluding that this court held in Tyson I that a postemployment confidentiality agreement be signed in all instances as an absolute prerequisite for trade-secret status and protection. We hold that the trial court did err in this regard. Our decision in Tyson I was not limited to the failure to have a postemployment contract. Rather, we concluded: As best we can tell, there were no efforts on Tyson's part to restrain disclosure of information postemployment. And that distinguishes the facts in this case from the facts in Cardinal Freight . Obviously, the failure of a business to protect against the disclosure of information it considers to be secret following employment is critical to our analysis and ultimate decision regarding whether the information is in fact a trade secret. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that the information at issue qualified as a trade secret. We reverse the decree of the trial court ordering the one-year injunctions and remand for an order to be entered forthwith voiding the injunctions. Tyson I, 342 Ark. at 680, 30 S.W.3d at 730-31 (emphasis added). In holding as we did, we relied on our opinion in Cardinal Freight Carriers, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Serv., Inc., 336 Ark. 143, 987 S.W.2d 642 (1999). In Cardinal Freight , we alluded to a postemployment confidentiality agreement for one year as being one way a company could protect trade secrets. We also emphasized measures taken by the company during the employee's employment to protect the secrecy of its information. J.B. Hunt, in that case, had passwords and passcodes in place to protect trade-secret information and had adopted a loose-lips policy to restrict public disclosure of confidential information. In short, we did not specifically require in Cardinal Freight or in Tyson I that a postemployment confidentiality contract be entered into in all instances to identify trade secrets and to protect them. That was simply one measure to which we referred that could be taken by the company to assure trade-secret protection postemployment. However, as we made clear in Tyson I , no efforts had been taken by the company to restrain the disclosure of information postemployment. And that was determinative.