Opinion ID: 2048270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Trade Secret Agreement

Text: Left for comment, then, is defendants' second summarized assignment of error, the district court's treatment of the trade secret agreement between Murman and Selection Research described in part II above. Prior to the commencement of the case now before us, and in the course of prior litigation between Selection Research and Murman, those parties, on July 9, 1984, entered into a stipulation reciting that Murman had not to that date violated the terms of the subject document and agreeing that upon order of the district court, the trade secret agreement shall become void and of no effect between the parties[,] it being the intention of the parties to substitute this stipulation therefor. At trial of the present case, testimony was adduced indicating that during the meeting at which the aforedescribed stipulation was made, Hoeltke was told the stipulation applied to Mr. Murman selling computer software materials and that further as a part of that ... there was a very long list of [Selection Research] clients that were discussed and that that was part of the agreement that those clients would not be contacted and that Mr Murman would be selling computer software material. There was at no point reference to [Selection Research] perceivers or indepths or that type of material. Selection Research relied on Murman's statement that he would not engage in the business of personnel selection in entering into the above stipulation. However, when this stipulation was signed, Murman had already commenced selection work for the Miller Co., a fact which Murman did not disclose to Selection Research at the time. Noting that the stipulation recited that Murman has not violated the terms of the trade secret agreement, the district court concluded that the Stipulation, taken together with the statements by Murman, is sufficient to establish fraudulent misrepresentations by Murman by clear and convincing evidence. The district court thus entered an order reciting that the stipulation was set aside and the agreement reinstated. We observe, however, that Selection Research's operative petition in this case does not allege a breach of the agreement between it and Murman, to which Measurement Systems is not a party. Rather, Selection Research's petition relies upon the common-law tort of misappropriation of trade secrets and the statutory tort of deceptive trade practices. The only role the agreement plays in this case is evidential in the sense that its existence bears on the care Selection Research affords what it perceives as its trade secrets. Thus, whatever may be the ultimate import of the district court's treatment of the stipulation and agreement, that treatment has no bearing on the resolution of this present case. Accordingly, we concern ourselves with the matter no further.