Opinion ID: 4511614
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: As-Applied Review

Text: Before assessing whether the Agreement was reasonable, the district court had to consider whether Lavin's new job at PillPack fell within the Agreement's prohibited activities. The district court concluded that it did. CVS Pharmacy, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 236. In making this threshold determination, the district court made numerous factual findings, including that it is highly likely that Mr. Lavin's new employment will result in the disclosure of Confidential Information to PillPack, a Competitor in the industry. Id. Under Rhode Island law, a business's confidential information . . . may qualify as a legitimate interest that a noncompetition agreement can protect. Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2009). Lavin contends that there are narrower means to protect CVS's interest in its confidential information than preventing him from assuming the position at all. Specifically, Lavin points out that the 2017 RCA also contains nondisclosure and nonsolicitation - 18 - provisions. He argues that these provisions suffice to protect CVS's confidential information from PillPack. Thus, he contends, the Agreement as applied even to his specific position at PillPack is unreasonable because barring Lavin's employment entirely, rather than imposing other restrictions on what he can do at PillPack, is too broad a restraint. We disagree. The district court's factual findings show that Lavin has extensive knowledge of CVS Caremark's strategic initiatives and detailed information about its contracts with retail pharmacies and payers. It strains credulity to think that a top-echelon executive like Lavin could develop a strategy for PillPack without dipping into this knowledge. Indeed, as the district court found, see CVS Pharmacy, 384 F. Supp. 3d at 230, PillPack hired Lavin in part to help develop tactics to disrupt the industry, a role that he is suited to perform chiefly because of his knowledge of strategic initiatives developed by a major industry player. For similar reasons, PillPack's and Lavin's representations that Lavin will not participate in any work involving CVS Caremark or its clients are not sufficient to protect CVS's confidential information, such that enforcing the Agreement here would be unreasonable. As the district court found, in his new position, Lavin would report directly to PillPack's CEO, id., who, in turn, would be overseeing work related to CVS. PillPack's - 19 - CEO has indicated that the two would communicate openly about Lavin's strategy for negotiating with PBMs other than CVS, Lavin's primary responsibility at PillPack. Id. at 234. Thus, the confidential information Lavin gained from his years at CVS Caremark, which would inevitably inform his strategy in negotiating with other PBMs, would indirectly inform the CEO's similar negotiations with CVS Caremark.6 For these reasons, we conclude that, under an as-applied approach, enforcing the Agreement to bar Lavin from working at PillPack is reasonable. The narrower means that Lavin has argued would protect CVS's confidential information are insufficient based on the district court's unchallenged factual findings about Lavin's role at CVS and his new position at PillPack.