Opinion ID: 6345379
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Balance of Harm

Text: Because Core Progression demonstrated it would suffer loss of its trade secrets and damage to its business absent an injunction, the district court found that the balance of harms favored issuing a preliminary injunction. In balancing harms, a court looks at whether the moving party’s “threatened injury outweighs the injury the opposing party will suffer under the injunction.” Sierra Club, Inc. v. Bostick, 539 F. App’x 885, 889 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1125 (10th Cir. 2012)). O’Hare argues that because he is not able to participate in his chosen profession of gym ownership, his harm outweighs the harm to Core Progression. It is true that O’Hare will not be able to open a fitness facility within 25 miles of the former franchise, which temporarily limits his career outcomes if he is unwilling to relocate. But O’Hare agreed proprietary training, work on developing their location for a year, see [our] great success and then have the name be tarnished . . . it makes it look like my brand went to North Carolina and failed and was a fraud.” Aplt. App. at 2429. 8 Appellate Case: 21-1151 Document: 010110690628 Date Filed: 05/31/2022 Page: 9 to this provision when he signed the franchise agreement. Harms that a party brings on himself generally bear less weight in this balancing analysis. See Fitness Together Franchise, LLC v. EM Fitness, LLC, No. 120CV02757DDDSTV, 2020 WL 6119470, at  (D. Colo. Oct. 16, 2020) (citing Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 290 F.3d 578, 596 (3d Cir. 2002)). Thus, the district court found that the risk of harm to Core Progression was more substantial than the risk of harm to O’Hare. This finding is supported by the record. O’Hare also argues that the district court failed to consider the harm to his First Amendment rights. He believes the preliminary injunction is a prior restraint designed to restrict his First Amendment rights, even though he concedes that it does not explicitly forbid him from any form of speech. He argues that because the preliminary injunction is designed to prevent further harm, including from his own damaging statements, it curtails his future speech. The only speech O’Hare must refrain from is divulging Core Progression’s proprietary trade information. This restriction does not run afoul of the First Amendment, and courts regularly uphold prohibitions on sharing trade secrets. See, e.g., Harvey Barnett, Inc. v. Shidler, 200 F. App’x 734, 73940 (10th Cir. 2006). There is no harm to O’Hare’s protected First Amendment interests. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of harms favors Core Progression.