Court Declines To Issue Seizure Order Under Defend Trade Secrets Act

FH
Foley Hoag LLP
Contributor
Foley Hoag provides innovative, strategic legal services to public, private and government clients. We have premier capabilities in the life sciences, healthcare, technology, energy, professional services and private funds fields, and in cross-border disputes. The diverse experiences of our lawyers contribute to the exceptional senior-level service we deliver to clients.
As we previously reported, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) enacted last May includes a powerful ex parte seizure proceeding that allows courts in "extraordinary circumstances"...
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

As we previously reported, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) enacted last May includes a powerful ex parte seizure proceeding that allows courts in "extraordinary circumstances" to order the seizure of property necessary to prevent the immediate dissemination of trade secrets.

Last month, the Northern District of California issued one of the first (if not the first) decision on an ex parte seizure request under the new statute.  While it is still too early to establish any trends, this decision might give some insight into how courts will interpret and apply the seizure provision of the DTSA.

In OOO Brunswick Rail Management et al. v. Sultanov et al., Brunswick alleged that two former employees emailed company confidential information to their personal email accounts, and one of the former employees refused to return a company-issued phone and laptop.  Brunswick also alleges that the former employees provided the confidential information to one of Brunswick's creditors in order to harm Brunswick in its debt restructuring negotiations.

The court denied Brunswick's request under the DTSA for the court to seize the company-issued devices on the grounds that alternative measures exist for the court to protect the data.  Specifically, the court (1) issued a preservation order on the hosts of the former employees' personal email accounts preventing the destruction of any of the email; (2) entered a temporary restraining order preventing the former employees from accessing or modifying the company-issued devices, destroying or modifying evidence relating to the action, or violating their employment agreements; and (3) ordered the former employees to bring the company-issued devices to the next hearing date and deliver them into the court's custody.

Thus, while the court declined to issue the requested DTSA seizure order, the court provided various other mechanisms for controlling dissemination of the confidential information.  Time will tell whether other courts will take a similar approach.

To view Foley Hoag's Security, Privacy and The Law Blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Court Declines To Issue Seizure Order Under Defend Trade Secrets Act

United States Intellectual Property
Contributor
Foley Hoag provides innovative, strategic legal services to public, private and government clients. We have premier capabilities in the life sciences, healthcare, technology, energy, professional services and private funds fields, and in cross-border disputes. The diverse experiences of our lawyers contribute to the exceptional senior-level service we deliver to clients.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More