Court Opinion

ID: 9742355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:11:19.472418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:31.500384
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached. The restrictive covenant in effect required two distinct things of Carstens: that he not engage in competition and that he not divulge confidential information. If the covenant was valid, Means was entitled to actual damages for its breach. The requested admissions dealt only with Carstens’ potential disclosure of confidential information, Means’ Management Information System and development of competition strategies. Thus, even if the admissions be taken as absolute, they were insufficient to preclude the question of whether Means suffered any actual damage from breach of the covenant.