10-9 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS

• Jurisdiction: United States

10-9 Temporary Restraining Orders

Much of the case law since the DTSA's enactment has addressed applications for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Even though all the DTSA cases since its enactment have been brought under both state and federal law, the courts deciding whether to grant a TRO typically have not distinguished between the federal statute and the state statute at issue. In one case, for instance, an analysis under the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act was sufficient to grant the TRO, requiring no discussion at all of the DTSA.⁴⁷ Other cases reviewed the state and federal statutes collectively, finding the plaintiffs were equally likely to succeed on the merits of both the state statute and the DTSA.⁴⁸ In another case, where strong evidence demonstrated misappropriation, and particularly where the employee signed a non-disclosure or non-solicitation agreement, one court did not hesitate to grant a TRO.⁴⁹ By contrast, another court refused to grant a TRO where the plaintiff lost its customer list to the defendant, but no customers ultimately went with the competitor.⁵⁰

--------

Notes:

^[47] Panera, LLC v. Nettles, No. 4:16-cv-1181-JAR, 2016 WL 4124114 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2016) ("Although the Court's analysis has focused on [plaintiff's] Missouri trade secrets claim, an analysis under the Defend Trade Secrets Act would likely reach a similar conclusion.").

^[48] Earthbound Corp. v. MiTek USA, Inc., No. C16-1150 RSM, 2016 WL 4418013 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 19, 2016).

^[49] See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, No...