Court Opinion

ID: 9621418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:57:35.084226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:03.334743
License: Public Domain

GOOLSBY, Judge
(concurring):
I agree with the majority opinion in all respects; however, I do not construe it to hold that a customer list cannot be a trade secret and therefore not protected under the South Carolina Uniform Trade Secrets Act.1

. See Carolina Chem. Equip. Co. v. Muckenfuss, 322 S.C. 289, 296, 471 S.E.2d 721, 724 (Ct.App.1996) ("[I]n determining whether something is a trade secret, one must consider the extent to which the information is known outside of his business and the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.”); see also Commissioners' Comment to 1992 Act No. 437 § 2 ("[Reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy have been held to include advising employees of the existence of a trade secret, limiting access to a trade secret on 'need to know basis', and controlling plant access.”); American Credit Indem. Co. v. Sacks, 213 Cal.App.3d 622, 262 Cal.Rptr. 92, 97 (1989) (holding a customer list of an underwriter of credit insurance company was a trade secret because it facilitated solicitation of business to an "elite ... percent of those potential customers which already have *285evinced a predisposition to purchase credit insurance”), review denied (November 16, 1989); Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 88 Wash.App. 350, 944 P.2d 1093, 1097 (1997) (holding "the common law rule prohibiting the solicitation of a former employer’s customers with memorized confidential information remains intact under the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act]” and, further, an employer was entitled to damages under the Act for a former employee's solicitation of the employer’s clients using memorized confidential information), aff'd, 137 Wash.2d 427, 971 P.2d 936 (1999).