Opinion ID: 151632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Adverse Inference Based on Botticella's Failure to Testify

Text: The District Court determined that Botticella's conduct following his acceptance of the Hostess job offer demonstrated his intention to use Bimbo's trade secrets during his employment with Hostess. The District Court bolstered this determination by drawing an adverse inference from Botticella's failure to testify at the preliminary injunction hearing. In so doing, the District Court relied on our decision in SI Handling Systems, Inc. v. Heisley , where we stated that because the misappropriation of a trade secret often must be proved by construct[ing] a web of perhaps ambiguous circumstantial evidence that outweighs the defendants' direct denial, the failure of defendants to testify in the face of a strong showing that a misappropriation or misuse occurred justifies the inference that their testimony would be unfavorable to their cause. 753 F.2d at 1261 (internal citations omitted). On the other hand, Botticella contends that an adverse inference was inappropriate because he chose not to put forward any evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing. In support of this position he points to Stowe Township v. Standard Life Ins. Co. of Indiana, where we stated that whatever inference might otherwise be available from the failure to call a witness is not permissible when a defendant chooses to put on no evidence at all, in apparent reliance on its determination that plaintiff has not met its burden. 507 F.2d 1332, 1338 (3d Cir.1975). Even assuming that the District Court erred by drawing an adverse inference from Botticella's failure to testify, the conclusion that Botticella intended to use Bimbo's trade secrets during his employment with Hostess rests on a solid evidentiary basis, namely, Botticella's not disclosing to Bimbo his acceptance of a job offer from a direct competitor, remaining in a position to receive Bimbo's confidential information and, in fact, receiving such information after committing to the Hostess job, and copying Bimbo's trade secret information from his work laptop onto external storage devices. Bimbo Bakeries, 2010 WL 571774, at . Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Bimbo demonstrated a likelihood of success on its misappropriation of trade secrets claim.