Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a dispute between a former employee, Eric Hunter, and his former employer, Orthofix, regarding allegations of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference. Hunter was employed as a medical device salesman and left Orthofix to join competitor DJO, allegedly taking confidential sales information. The court examined the enforceability of non-compete and non-disclosure clauses under Texas law, reforming them to a one-year, 100-mile restriction. Orthofix argued that Hunter misappropriated trade secrets, but the court found Orthofix's protective measures insufficient to establish trade secret status under the Ohio Uniform Trade Secret Act. The court did, however, find Hunter liable for tortious interference by converting customer orders from Orthofix to DJO, awarding Orthofix $62,039 in damages. Hunter's counterclaim for unpaid commissions was partially successful, resulting in an award of $8,710 based on Orthofix's documented calculations. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Orthofix on the tortious interference claim and Hunter on the trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract claims.
Legal Issues Addressed
Award of Unpaid Commissions and Expensessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Hunter claimed unpaid commissions from Orthofix, but the court accepted Orthofix's calculation of the owed amount based on evidence presented, awarding Hunter $8,710.
Reasoning: The court accepted Orthofix’s calculation of $8,710 based on testimony regarding commission awards.
Breach of Contract Related to Non-Disclosure Provisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Orthofix claimed Hunter breached the non-disclosure provision by using confidential information post-employment, but the court found the provision unenforceable as it effectively functioned as a lifetime non-compete clause.
Reasoning: Orthofix's inability to specify confidential information that is not also a trade secret undermines its misappropriation and breach of contract claims.
Calculation of Damages in Tortious Interference Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court calculated damages for Orthofix based on lost profits from converted orders, using a 36.5% profit margin and unit cost to arrive at an award amount.
Reasoning: The court determined damages of $62,039 based on a 36.5% profit margin and a $3,695 unit cost.
Non-Compete and Non-Disclosure Clauses under Texas Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court analyzed the enforceability of the non-compete and non-disclosure clauses in Hunter's employment agreement with Orthofix under Texas law, ultimately reforming these clauses to a one-year, 100-mile limitation.
Reasoning: The court previously reformed Hunter’s non-compete clause to a one-year, 100-mile limitation and would apply similar reformation to the non-disclosure clause.
Tortious Interference with Contractual Relationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that Hunter and Lemanski intentionally disrupted Orthofix's contracts by converting customer orders to DJO, resulting in damages awarded to Orthofix.
Reasoning: The court found that Hunter tortiously interfered with Orthofix's contracts with 46 doctors, lacking justification and causing Orthofix to suffer damages in lost profits.
Trade Secret Misappropriation under Ohio Uniform Trade Secret Act (OUTSA)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Orthofix alleged misappropriation of trade secrets related to Hunter's retention and use of the playbook information. However, the court found Orthofix's efforts to safeguard the information inadequate to support a claim of trade secret status.
Reasoning: Orthofix's inability to specify confidential information that is not also a trade secret undermines its misappropriation and breach of contract claims.