The Householder Group, LLLP v. Van Mason et al

Filing 101

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER, denying THG's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 78 on the issue of breach of contract; granting the Former Managers' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 73 on the issue of THG's trade secrets claims; setting the Final Pretrial Conference for 11/14/12 at 2:00 p.m.; Proposed Pretrial Order due 10/19/12 (see order for complete details). Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 9/30/12. (REW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

)
)
)
Plaintiff and
)
Counterdefendant,
)
)
v.
)
)
Charles Van Mason and Jeff DeBoer,
)
)
Defendants and
)
Counterclaimants.
)
)
Robert Burkarth,
)
)
Consolidated Plaintiff and
)
Counterdefendant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
The Householder Group, LLLP,
)
)
Consolidated Defendant and )
Counterclaimant.
)
)
The Householder Group, LLLP,

No. CV 09-2370-PHX-SMM
No. CV 10-0918-PHX-SMM
(Consolidated)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND
ORDER

23
Before the Court are (1) the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff
24
Householder Group, LLLP (“THG”) on the issue of breach of contract (Doc. 78); and (2) the
25
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Charles Van Mason, Jeff DeBoer, and
26
Robert Burkarth (collectively the “Former Managers”) on the issue of THG’s Uniform Trade
27
Secrets Act (UTSA) claims. (Doc. 73). The matters are fully briefed by both sides. (Docs.
28
73-77; Docs. 79-80; Docs. 83-91; Docs. 95-96.) After reviewing the briefs, and having

1

determined that oral argument is unnecessary,1 the Court denies THG’s Motion for Partial

2

Summary Judgment, and grants the Former Managers’ Motion for Partial Summary

3

Judgment.

4
5

BACKGROUND
I.

Factual Background2

6

THG is a financial advisory firm headquartered in Arizona that conducts business

7

nationwide through branch offices managed by branch office managers (“managers”). (Doc.

8

62 at 9; Doc. 66 at 2.) The managers are investment advisors (“brokers”) who act as

9

representatives of THG, and are simultaneously registered representatives of the registered

10

broker-dealer. (Doc. 18 ¶ 7.) At all times relevant to this action, THG’s registered broker-

11

dealer was SunAmerica Securities, which subsequently changed its name to AIG Financial

12

Advisors. (Doc. 18 ¶ 7.)

13

THG provides training to the branch managers in marketing techniques, teaching

14

strategies the managers can use to “acquire a high net worth client base.” (Doc. 18 ¶ 9.) A

15

central element of THG’s training consists of teaching the managers to host dinner seminars,

16

in which the managers utilize slides and solicitation techniques provided by THG in efforts

17

to attract investment clients. (Doc. 18 ¶ 8.) As independent contractors of THG, managers

18

are solely responsible for paying the costs of the training and consulting system, as well as

19

for the costs of opening and operating their independent branch offices. (Doc. 18 ¶ 9.)

20

THG typically requires managers, including the Former Managers in this case, to sign

21

a Branch Office Agreement (“BOA”). (Doc. 62 at 9; Doc. 66 at 2; Doc. 63 ¶¶ 2-4; Doc. 67

22

¶¶ 2-4.) The Former Managers each signed BOAs. (Doc. 83-1 ¶¶ 7, 28, 56.) Each BOA

23
24
25
26
27

1

Defendant’s request for oral argument is denied because the parties have had an
adequate opportunity to present their written arguments, and oral argument will not aid the
Court’s decision. See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev., 933 F.2d
724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).
2

The facts as set forth in this section are those which are undisputed by the parties,
except where otherwise noted.

28
-2-

1

contained a provision requiring a $150,000 integration fee for “the services and intellectual

2

property” provided by THG, a notice of termination provision, and a provision prohibiting

3

the Former Managers from impermissibly using THG trade secrets. (Doc. 80-3; Doc. 80-8;

4

Doc. 80-13.)

5

The terms of the BOAs stated in pertinent part:

6

III. CONSULTING SERVICES AND MARKETING SYSTEMS

7

During the term of this AGREEMENT, THG shall provide and furnish
consulting services and training to Manager in the effective use of marketing
systems and strategies which it has developed and perfected. Such consulting
services or training shall be made available to Manager by such person or
persons as THG shall designate and shall be furnished or conducted not more
than once per month and at such other times as THG in its total discretion shall
determine. The consulting and training services may be delivered by Ti-IG at
such locations and by such means as THG shall determine.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

The parties hereto agree that the services and intellectual property to be
provided by THG, pursuant to this AGREEMENT, are of very significant
value. The services and intellectual property were acquired, developed and
perfected by THG, and are now provided to Manager, at a substantial cost to
THG. The cost of the investment made by THG in its performance of this
AGREEMENT can only be recouped by THG over an extended contractual
relationship with Manager. The normal time period required for recoupment
of the investment made by THG is thirty-six months during which time THG
will suffer losses occasioned by its forbearance in associating with other
revenue producing investment advisors in the Branch Office area.
As payment for the services provided to Manager by THG, Manager agrees to
pay THG a one time fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($150,000.00) and agrees to transact all Branch Office business through THG
and receive the agreed upon payouts as hereinafter provided in Articles VII
and VIII. At the election of Manager, Manager may sign a promissory note for
all, or a part, of the one time fee. The promissory note shall bear interest at the
rate of two hundred (200) basis points above Wall Street Journal prime which
interest rate shall be adjusted semiannually. The promissory note shall be
serviced by the payment of ten percent (10%) of Manager' s Gross Revenue to
THG.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IV. PROPRlETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AN[D] USE
OF NAME.
During the term of this AGREEMENT, THG hereby grants to the Manager a
non-exclusive license to use and have access to various forms of proprietary
and confidential information and to the use of the name "THE
HOUSEHOLDER GROUP" within the territory of the Branch Office which
is described and set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto. The Manager shall
have the exclusive right to conduct investment advisor business under the
name of THE HOUSEHOLDER GROUP in the Branch Office territory during
such time as the Manager is Actively Marketing such territory. The Manager
agrees to keep confidential and not to use or to disclose to others, except his
-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

or her employees and Registered Representative assistants, either during or
after the term of this AGREEMENT, the proprietary information, customer or
prospect lists, computer database, marketing and/or seminar materials or other
trade secrets which he/she gains knowledge of through the Manager's
association with THG, or the Related Entities, except for any use or disclosure
in the ordinary course of business during the term of this AGREEMENT. The
Manager further agrees that at the termination of this AGREEMENT, he/she
will neither take nor retain, without prior written authorization from THG or
the Related Entities, any papers, computer database, files or other documents
or copies thereof or other confidential information of any kind belonging to
THG or Related Entities and/or pertaining to their business, sales, products,
financial condition or other proprietary information; and THG or the Related
Entities may, at any time during the term of this AGREEMENT and upon its
termination, demand the return of any such papers, computer database, files,
other documents, confidential information, or other trade secrets and the
Manager shall promptly comply.
....
Term. The term of this AGREEMENT shall be for a period of 3 years but it
shall automatically be renew[ed] for succeeding periods of one year unless
written notification is given by one of the parties to the other party not more
than 60 days and not less than 30 days prior to its expiration. This
AGREEMENT shall not become a binding contract until it is executed by all
parties appearing on the signature page and will be deemed effective as of the
date on the signature page, unless and to the extent a specific provision of this
AGREEMENT refers to a different effective date. This AGREEMENT shall
supersede any and all previous agreements between THG and Manager.
(Doc. 80-3 at 2-4, 6.)

16

Defendant Charles Van Mason (“Mason”) first met with THG representatives in 2002

17

(Doc. 83-1 ¶ 3). Mason signed the BOA on October 6, 2004. (Doc. 83-1 ¶ 7.) The parties

18

disagree as to the date the BOA became effective as to Mason, however; THG asserts that

19

the agreement became effective on October 19, 2004 (Doc. 79 ¶¶ 6, 9), while Mason

20

contends that THG backdated the BOA to March, 2003 (Doc. 83-1 ¶ 5). The parties agree

21

that Mason began his affiliation with THG in October of 2002, and that he completed

22

multiple tasks relating to his affiliation before he was presented with the BOA. (Doc. 83-1

23

¶ 3; Doc. 18 ¶ 21.) Indeed, the parties agree that THG earned in excess of $150,000 in

24

commissions and fees generated by Mason during this period. (Doc. 91 ¶ 45). Mason also

25

claims that he was told that if he did not sign the BOA, he would be forced to cease his

26

affiliation

with

THG.

(Doc.

87

¶¶

15-16;

Doc.

86-1

at

6.)

27

Defendant Jeff DeBoer (“DeBoer”) underwent three months of initial training by THG

28

before entering into the BOA. (Doc. 83-1 ¶¶ 26, 28.) DeBoer signed a promissory note with
-4-

1

SunAmerica Securities, Inc., for the purpose of offsetting expenses involved in setting up his

2

own branch office. (Doc. 80-11; Doc. 83-1 ¶¶ 47-48.) Defendant Robert Burkarth

3

(“Burkarth”) also signed a promissory note with SunAmerica Securities, Inc. (Doc. 80-16;

4

Doc. 83-1 ¶ 64.)

5

THG did not provide any of the Former Managers with a list of clients upon their

6

affiliation with THG. (Doc. 91 ¶ 3.) During their affiliation with THG, the Former Managers

7

purchased lists of prospective clients from third party dealers. (Doc. 91 ¶ 38.) The Former

8

Managers used the lists they purchased from the third party dealers to invite potential clients

9

to dinner seminars at which they made presentations. (Doc. 91 ¶ 39.)

10

Mason and DeBoer both left THG without providing the thirty days notice purportedly

11

required under the terms of their BOAs. (Doc. 83-1 ¶¶ 14, 37.) THG contends that Burkarth

12

also failed to give timely notice, but Burkarth disagrees, asserting that he gave advance

13

notice of his intent to leave THG. (Doc. 83-1 ¶ 61.) Mason terminated his affiliation with

14

THG on November 17, 2006, and began contacting his clients the following Monday to begin

15

the process of moving the clients to his new dealer-broker, LPL Financial. (Doc. 83-1 ¶¶ 21-

16

22.) Nearly all of Mason’s clients were subsequently transferred to LPL Financial. (Doc. 83-

17

1 ¶ 24.)

18

DeBoer terminated his affiliation with THG on December 5, 2006, and on that date

19

hosted a “client appreciation event” where he announced his resignation from THG and his

20

change to a new broker-dealer, Commonwealth. (Doc. 83-1 ¶ 45.) A number of DeBoer’s

21

clients signed forms authorizing him to transfer their accounts to his new broker-dealer.

22

(Doc. 86-2 at 20.)

23

II.

Procedural Background

24

On November 12, 2009, THG brought suit against Van Mason and DeBoer, alleging

25

seven causes of action including breach of contract pertaining to the BOA and violation of

26

the Arizona Uniform Trade Secret Act for alleged misappropriation of THG’s client

27

information. (Doc. 1.) Van Mason and DeBoer brought four counterclaims, including breach

28

of contract and bad faith arising from the BOA. (Doc. 14.) On April 27, 2010, Burkarth
-5-

1

brought suit alleging five causes of action against THG, including claims for breach of

2

contract, bad faith, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation stemming from the BOA. (CV 10-

3

918-PHX-MHM, Doc. 1.) On May 21, 2010, the Court, to promote consistency and judicial

4

economy, consolidated Van Mason and DeBoer’s case with Burkarth’s similar case. (Doc.

5

36.) On May 27, 2010, THG brought five counterclaims against Burkarth, including breach

6

of contract related to the BOA and misappropriation of trade secrets. (Doc. 37.)

7

THG now brings its Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of Breach of

8

Contract against the Former Managers, arguing that no genuine issue of material fact exists

9

as to the Former Managers’ breach of their BOAs, and Defendants DeBoer and Burkarth’s

10

breach of their promissory notes. (Doc. 78.) The Former Managers also bring a Partial

11

Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to

12

THG’s Trade Secrets claims. (Doc. 73.)
LEGAL STANDARDS

13
14

I.

Motions for Summary Judgment

15

A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents,

16

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “show[] that there is no genuine

17

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Jesinger v.

19

Nev. Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994). Substantive law determines

20

which facts are material. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also

21

Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130. “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit

22

under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson,

23

477 U.S. at 248. The dispute must also be genuine, that is, the evidence must be “such that

24

a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.; see Jesinger, 24 F.3d

25

at 1130.

26

A principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually

27

unsupported claims.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. Summary judgment is appropriate against

28

a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
-6-

1

essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”

2

Id. at 322; see also Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 26 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 1994). The

3

moving party need not disprove matters on which the opponent has the burden of proof at

4

trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. The party opposing summary judgment need not

5

produce evidence “in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary

6

judgment.” Id. at 324. However, the nonmovant must set out specific facts showing a genuine

7

dispute for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

8

585-88 (1986); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995).

9

II.

Breach of Contract

10

In an action for breach of contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving “the

11

existence of a contract, breach of the contract, and resulting damages.” Chartone, Inc. v.

12

Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162, 170, 83 P.3d 1103, 1112 (App. 2004) (citing Thunderbird

13

Metallurgical, Inc. v. Ariz. Testing Lab., 5 Ariz.App. 48, 423 P.2d 124 (1976)).

14

Arizona law follows the Restatement’s view of duress, which defines it as:

15

a) any wrongful act of one person that compels a manifestation of apparent
assent by another to a transaction without his volition, or b) any wrongful
threat of one person by words or other conduct that induces another to enter
into a transaction under the influence of such fear as precludes him from
exercising his free will and judgment, if the threat was intended or should
reasonably have been expected to operate as an inducement.

16
17
18
19

Inter-Tel, Inc. v. Bank of America, 195 Ariz. 111, 117, 985 P.2d 596, 602 (App. 1999).

20

“Duress exists if one party is induced to assent to a contract by a wrongful threat or act of the

21

other party.” Id. (citing Frank Culver Elec., Inc. v. Jorgenson, 136 Ariz. 76, 77-78, 664 P.2d

22

226, 227-28 (App. 1983)). Normally a contract is not a product of duress “merely because

23

one party takes advantage of the financial difficulty of the other.” Inter-Tel, 195 Ariz. At

24

117, 985 P.2d at 602. “It is a different matter, however, when the wrongful act of one party

25

is the very thing that created the other party’s financial difficulty.” Id. (citing USLife Title

26

Co. v. Gutkin, 152 Ariz. 349, 356-57, 732 P.2d 579, 586-87 (App. 1986); Frank Culver Elec.,

27

Inc., 136 Ariz. at 78, 664 P.2d at 228).

28
-7-

1

III.

Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act

2

Arizona has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), which provides a

3

cause of action for damages against a party for misappropriation of trade secrets. A.R.S.

4

§ 44-403(A) (2012). Arizona recognizes the Restatement of Torts in the absence of

5

controlling authority. Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Ehmke, 197 Ariz. 144, 149, 3 P.3d 1064,

6

1069 (App. 1999). “Trade secret” is defined as:

7
8
9
10
11

information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device,
method, technique or process, that both:
(a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being
generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by,
other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
(b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to
maintain its secrecy.
A.R.S. § 44-401.4.

12

The “hallmark” of trade secrets are their secrecy, and thus “not only must the subject-

13

matter of the trade secret be secret, it must be of such a nature that it would not occur to

14

persons in the trade or business.” Enterprise Leasing, 197 Ariz. at 149, 3 P.3d at 1069 (citing

15

Wright v. Palmer, 11 Ariz. App. 292, 294, 464 P.2d 363, 365 (1970)). Therefore, matters of

16

public knowledge are not protected as trade secrets. Enterprise Leasing, 197 Ariz. at 149, 3

17

P.3d at 1069.

18

The Restatement of Torts uses a six-factor test to determine if a trade secret exists:

19

(1) the extent to which the information is known outside of the business; (2)
the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in its
business; (3) the extent of measures taken by the business to guard the secrecy
of its information; (4) the value of the information to the business and its
competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the business in
developing the information; (6) the ease or difficulty with which the
information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.

20
21
22
23

Id. at 149 n.6, 464 P.3d at 1069 n.6.

24

“A list of customers, if their trade and patronage have been secured by years of

25

business effort and advertising and the expenditure of time and money, constitutes an

26

important part of a business and is in the nature of a trade secret.” Prudential Insurance Co.

27

v. Pochiro, 153 Ariz. 368, 371, 736 P.2d 1180, 1183 (App. 1987) (quoting Town & Country

28

House & Home Service, Inc. v. Evans, 150 Conn. 314, 319, 189 A.2d 390, 393-94 (1963)
-8-

1

(citing the Restatement of Torts)).
DISCUSSION

2
3

I.

Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment

4

A. Breach of the BOAs by the Former Managers

5

THG argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the Former

6

Managers’ breach of the BOA. (Doc. 78.) THG takes the position that there is no genuine

7

issue of material fact as to whether the Former Managers committed breach of contract by

8

failing to provide THG with the requisite thirty days notice before terminating their

9

affiliation with THG. (Doc. 78.) The Former Managers defend by asserting that the BOAs

10

are unenforceable as the product of both duress and fraud in the inducement, and that the

11

term requiring thirty days notice is an unlawful restrictive covenant. (Doc. 83.)

12

After consideration of the parties positions, this Court finds that there exist material

13

issues of fact suitable for trial on the matter of the enforceability of the contracts. Mason,

14

through deposition testimony,3 claims that when THG presented the BOA to him after he had

15

been affiliated with THG for over a year, he was told that he must sign it without

16

modification or cease his affiliation with THG. (Doc. 86-1 at 6-8; Doc. 87.) Mason states

17

further that by the time he was told to sign the BOA, he had opened three offices under THG,

18

was presenting THG’s dinner seminars on a monthly basis, and had invested considerable

19

capital affiliating with THG. (Doc. 86-1 at 6-8; Doc. 87.)

20

DeBoer testified at deposition that he too had been affiliated in practice, if not

21

officially, with THG for several months prior to being presented with the BOA (Doc. 86-2

22

at 23-24; Doc. 88); and testified that he was told to sign the BOA without modification, or

23

cease his affiliation with THG (Doc. 86-2 at 26; Doc. 88). Moreover, DeBoer offers evidence

24

suggesting that he asked THG early on, before being presented with the BOA, whether he

25
26
27
28

3

The Court notes that Defendants’ also submitted supplementary affidavits in support
of their claims; however, because the affidavits merely restated points from Defendants’
deposition testimony, they were not considered as adding additional weight to Defendants’
arguments.
-9-

1

would have to sign any other documents, and was told that he would not. (Doc. 86-2 at 24-

2

25.)

3

Burkarth offers evidence that he too had affiliated in practice with THG for several

4

months before ever being made aware of the BOA. (Doc. 89; Doc. 86-5 at 12-15.) Further,

5

Burkarth testified that THG gave him one hour to read and sign the BOA as-is or cease his

6

affiliation with THG. (Doc. 89; Doc. 86-5 at 12-14, 19-20.)

7

Taking into account all disputed facts and making reasonable inferences in favor of

8

the non-moving party, this Court finds that the Former Managers raise triable issues of fact

9

as to whether the circumstances surrounding their execution of the BOAs constituted duress

10

under Arizona law. Although normally duress will not be found where one party merely takes

11

advantage of the financial difficulties of the other, it may be found “when the wrongful act

12

of one party is the very thing that created the other party’s financial difficulty.” Inter-Tel, 195

13

Ariz. at 117, 985 P.2d at 602.

14

Here, the Former Managers all raise genuine issues of fact regarding whether THG’s

15

presentation of the BOA subsequent to de facto affiliation by the managers (months or, in the

16

case of Mason, over a year after affiliation began), and the manner in which the managers

17

were induced to sign the BOAs (being told to sign “as-is” on short or no notice, or cease their

18

affiliation) were wrongful acts by THG in which THG took advantage of financial

19

difficulties it caused the Former Managers.

20

Thus, considering both the disputed and undisputed facts, as well as making all

21

reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving parties, this Court finds that the Former

22

Managers all raise issues of material fact as to the enforceability of the BOAs due to potential

23

duress. Finding against summary judgment on these grounds, the Court need not address the

24

Former Managers’ additional arguments concerning fraudulent inducement or unlawful

25

restrictive covenants.

26

C. Breach of the promissory notes by Defendants DeBoer and Burkarth

27

THG makes additional claims for breach of contract by DeBoer and Burkarth, arguing

28

that they both breached the terms of promissory notes they signed. (Doc. 78.) DeBoer and
- 10 -

1

Burkarth respond that the promissory notes were not properly executed (Doc. 88; Doc. 89),

2

that THG has no standing to enforce the notes because THG was not a party (Doc. 88; Doc.

3

89), and that their obligations under the notes have been satisfied (Doc. 88; Doc.86-5 at 25-

4

26).

5

Taking into account all disputed and undisputed facts, and making all reasonable

6

inferences in favor of the non-moving parties, the Court finds that DeBoer and Burkarth raise

7

genuine issues of material fact as to THG’s standing to sue on the promissory notes and as

8

to whether their obligations under the notes were satisfied. DeBoer cites his declaration in

9

which he avows that the loan made to him under the note was by AIG, and that AIG forgave

10

the debt. (Doc. 88.) Burkarth similarly raises issues of fact regarding THG’s privity on the

11

note, and whether the debt was satisfied. (Doc. 89; Doc. 86-5 at 25-26.)

12

As a result, the Court finds that DeBoer and Burkarth raise triable issues of material

13

fact, and thus that THG fails to show that its claims for breach of the promissory notes are

14

suitable for summary judgment.

15

II.

Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment

16

The Former Managers have simultaneously filed a Motion for Partial Summary

17

Judgment, asserting that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to THG’s Trade Secrets

18

claim. (Doc. 73.)

19

The Former Managers contend that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to

20

THG’s claims that the Former Managers misappropriated THG’s trade secrets. (Doc. 73.)

21

The Former Managers urge that because THG did not provide them with the client lists, and

22

because they themselves developed the client lists through their own efforts, the lists were

23

not trade secrets, and thus that THG’s claims are deficient as a matter of law. (Doc. 73.)

24

THG argues in response that although the Former Managers purchased lists of

25

prospective clients from third party vendors, those lists were requested “utilizing

26

demographics provided by THG.” (Doc. 91 ¶¶ 39-40.) Thus, THG asserts that the clients

27

which the Former Managers ultimately obtained were clients of THG, and therefore

28

protectable under the UTSA.
- 11 -

1

After consideration of the parties’ positions, the Court finds that THG’s claims for

2

misappropriation of trade secrets are suitable for summary judgment. THG admits that it

3

provided no list of clients to the Former Managers, and that the managers instead purchased

4

their lists of prospective clients from a third party vendor. THG also admits that it was

5

through the Former Managers’ solicitation at dinner seminars that the managers formed their

6

relationships with their clients. Nevertheless, THG attempts to assert a proprietary interest

7

in the relationship between the Former Managers and the clients merely because THG gave

8

the managers the “know-how” to obtain the clients in the first place through use of THG’s

9

dinner seminars. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.

10

Although customer or client lists may at times be subject to trade secret protection,

11

case law does not support THG’s attempt to stake such a wide-reaching claim of ownership

12

over the clients of its independent contractors. Trade secret protection is appropriate for lists

13

of clients only where “their trade and patronage have been secured by years of business effort

14

and advertising and the expenditure of time and money.” See Prudential Ins., 153 Ariz. at

15

371, 736 P.2d at 1180. Here, there is no dispute that it was the Former Managers who secured

16

the trade and patronage of their clients, not THG. While THG may indeed have expended

17

time, effort, and money in the development of its marketing strategies and dinner

18

presentation methods, THG does not contend that the Former Managers misappropriated

19

THG’s methods or strategies. THG does not therefore have a protectable trade secret interest

20

in the lists of clients who were procured through the Former Managers’ authorized use of

21

those methods.

22

Thus, taking into account all undisputed facts, and making reasonable inferences from

23

the facts in light of the nonmoving party, the Court finds that THG has failed to assert a

24

genuine issue of material fact as to its claims against the Former Managers for

25

misappropriation of trade secrets. Therefore, the Court finds that those claims are deficient

26

as a matter of law, and are subject to summary judgment against THG.

27
28

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING THG’s Motion for Partial Summary
- 12 -

1

Judgment on the issue of breach of contract (Doc. 78).

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING the Former Managers’ Motion for

3

Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 73) on the issue of THG’s trade secrets claims (Doc. 1 at

4

9).

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting the Final Pretrial Conference for November

6

14, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. The deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions has passed.

7

This matter appearing ready for trial, a Final Pretrial Conference shall be held in Courtroom

8

605, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix,

9

Arizona 85003. The attorneys who will be responsible for the trial of the case shall attend

10

the Final Pretrial Conference. Counsel shall bring their calendars so that trial scheduling can

11

be discussed.

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if this case shall be tried to a jury, the attorneys

13

who will be responsible for the trial of the lawsuit shall prepare and sign a Proposed Pretrial

14

Order and submit it to the Court on Friday, October 19, 2012.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the content of the Proposed Pretrial Order shall

16

include, but not be limited to, that prescribed in the Form of Pretrial Order attached hereto.

17

Statements made shall not be in the form of a question, but should be a concise narrative

18

statement of each party’s contention as to each uncontested and contested issue.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) that

20

the Court will not allow the parties to offer any exhibits, witnesses, or other information that

21

were not previously disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Order and/or the

22

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or not listed in the Proposed Pretrial Order, except for

23

good cause.

24
25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the parties to exchange drafts of the
Proposed Pretrial Order no later than seven (7) days before the submission deadline.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and serve all motions in

27

limine no later than Friday, October 19, 2012. Each motion in limine shall include the legal

28

basis supporting it. Responses to motions in limine are due Friday, October 26, 2012. No
- 13 -

1

replies will be permitted. The attorneys for all parties shall come to the Final Pretrial

2

Conference prepared to address the merits of all such motions.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the parties to complete the following tasks

4

by the time of the filing of the Proposed Pretrial Order if they intend to try the case before

5

a jury:

6

(1)

The parties shall jointly file a description of the case to be read to the jury.

7

(2)

The parties shall jointly file a proposed set of voir dire questions. The voir

8

dire questions shall be drafted in a neutral manner. To the extent possible, the parties

9

shall stipulate to the proposed voir dire questions.

If the parties have any

10

disagreement about a particular question, the party or parties objecting shall state the

11

reason for their objection below the question.

12

(3)

13

instructions shall be accompanied by citations to legal authority. If a party believes

14

that a proposed instruction is a correct statement of the law, but the facts will not

15

warrant the giving of the instructions, the party shall so state. The party who believes

16

that the facts will not warrant the particular instruction shall provide an alternative

17

instruction with appropriate citations to legal authority.

18

(4)

19

the trial.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the parties to submit their proposed joint

21

statement of the case, joint voir dire questions, stipulated jury instructions, and verdict forms.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the case will be tried to the Court, rather than

23

to a jury, instead of filing a Proposed Pretrial Order, each party shall submit proposed

24

findings of fact and conclusions of law by the same date the Proposed Pretrial Order is due.

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall keep the Court apprised of the

26

possibility of settlement and should settlement be reached, the parties shall file a Notice of

27

Settlement with the Clerk of the Court.

28

The parties shall file a proposed set of stipulated jury instructions. The

Each party shall submit a form of verdict to be given to the jury at the end of

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court views compliance with the provisions
- 14 -

1

of this Order as critical to its case management responsibilities and the responsibilities of the

2

parties under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

DATED this 30th day of September, 2012.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15 -

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Plaintiff,

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

,

vs.

12
,
13
Defendant.
14

No. CV -PHX-SMM
PROPOSED
ORDER

PRETRIAL

FORM

OF

15
Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the following is the joint Proposed Final Pretrial

16
17

Order

to

be

considered

at

the

Final

18

___________________________, _________ .

19

Pretrial

Conference

A. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

20

Plaintiff(s):

22

for

(Include mailing address, office phone and fax numbers).

21

set

Defendant(s):

23

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.

24

Cite the statute(s) which gives this Court jurisdiction.

25

(e.g., Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship under Title 28

26

U.S.C. §1332.)

27

Jurisdiction (is/is not) disputed.

28

1

(If jurisdiction is disputed, the party contesting jurisdiction shall set forth with

2

specificity the bases for the objection.)

3

C. NATURE OF ACTION.

4

Provide a concise statement of the type of case, the cause of the action, and the

5

relief sought.

6

(e.g., - This is a products liability case wherein the plaintiff seeks damages for

7

personal injuries sustained when he fell from the driver's seat of a forklift. The

8

plaintiff contends that the forklift was defectively designed and manufactured by

9

the defendant and that the defects were a producing cause of his injuries

10
11

and damages.)
D. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES.

12

With respect to each count of the complaint, counterclaim or cross-claim, and to

13

any defense, affirmative defense, or the rebuttal of a presumption where the

14

burden of proof has shifted, the party having the burden of proof shall list the

15

elements or standards that must be proved in order for the party to prevail on that

16

claim or defense. Citation to relevant legal authority is required.

17

(e.g., In order to prevail on this products liability case, the plaintiff must prove

18

the following elements . . . .

19

In order to defeat this products liability claim based on the statute of repose, the

20

defendant must prove the following elements . . . .)

21

E. STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS

22

1. The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof:

23

2. The following facts, although not admitted, will not be contested at trial by

24

evidence to the contrary:

25
26
27
28

-2-

1

F. CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW

2

1. The following are the issues of fact to be tried and decided: (Each issue of fact

3

must be stated separately and in specific terms. Each parties’ contention as to

4

each issue must be set forth with respect to each and every issue of fact). E.g.,

5

Issue # 1: Whether Plaintiff used due care.

6

Plaintiff Contends: Plaintiff looked both ways before stepping into the

7

street . . . .

8

Defendant Contends: Plaintiff was chasing a ball and darted out into the

9

street without looking . . . .

10

2. The following are the issues of law to be tried and determined: (Each issue of

11

law must be stated separately and in specific terms. Each parties' contention as

12

to each issue must be set forth with respect to each and every issue of law). E.g.,

13

Issue # 1: Whether Plaintiff's suit is barred by the doctrine of laches.

14

Plaintiff Contends: . . .

15

Defendant Contends: . . .

16

G. LIST OF WITNESSES.

17

A jointly prepared list of witnesses and their respective addresses, identifying

18

each as either plaintiff’s or defendant’s, and indicating whether a fact or expert

19

witness, must accompany this proposed order. If a witness’ address is unknown,

20

it should be so stated. A brief statement as to the testimony of each witness must

21

also be included. Additionally, the parties shall designate which witnesses (1)

22

shall be called at trial, (2) may be called at trial, and (3) are unlikely to be called

23

at trial.

24

Additionally, the parties shall include the following text in this portion of the

25

Proposed Pretrial Order:

26

The parties understand that the Court has put them on notice that they are

27

responsible for ensuring that the witnesses they want to put on the stand to testify

28

-3-

1

are subpoenaed to testify, regardless of whether the intended witness is listed as

2

a witness for the plaintiff(s) or the defendant(s). Simply because a party lists a

3

witness does not mean that the witness will be called. Therefore, a party should

4

not rely on the listing of a witness by the opposing party as an indication that the

5

witness will be called. To the extent possible, the parties shall stipulate to the

6

witnesses who will be called to testify.

7

H. LIST OF EXHIBITS.

8

1. The following exhibits are admissible in evidence and may be marked in

9

evidence by the Clerk:

10

a. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

11

b. Defendant’s Exhibits:

12

2. As to the following exhibits, the parties have reached the following

13

stipulations:

14

a. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

15

b. Defendant’s Exhibits:

16

3. As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the exhibit is to be

17

offered objects to the admission of the exhibit and offers the objection stated

18

beneath:

19

a. Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

20

(E.g., City Hospital records of Plaintiff from March 6, 1985 through March 22,

21

1985. Defendant objects for lack of foundation because . . . . (the objection must

22

specify why there is a lack of foundation)).

23

b. Defendant’s Exhibits:

24

(E.g., Payroll records of Plaintiff’s employer which evidences payment of

25

Plaintiff’s salary during hospitalization and recovery. Plaintiff objects on the

26

ground of relevance and materiality because (the objection must specify why

27

there is a relevancy or materiality problem)).

28

-4-

1

I.

DEPOSITIONS TO BE OFFERED.

2

The parties shall list the depositions to be used at trial. The portions to be read

3

at trial shall be identified by page and line number. Counsel should note

4

objections to deposition testimony by writing the objection in the margins of that

5

portion of the text of the deposition to which the objection is made. Moreover,

6

these objections shall be explained in this portion of the Proposed Pretrial Order.

7

As is the Court's practice at trial, it is not sufficient for an objecting party to

8

simply state perfunctory grounds for an objection (e.g., “hearsay” or “lack of

9

foundation”) contained in the Proposed Pretrial Order. Each party must explain

10

the basis for each perfunctory objection (e.g., why it is hearsay, why it lacks

11

foundation, why it is irrelevant).

12

J.

MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Motions in limine shall be served, filed, and responded

13

to in accordance with the instructions contained in the Order Setting Final Pretrial

14

Conference.

15

K. LIST OF ANY PENDING MOTIONS

16

L. PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL

17

M. JURY DEMAND - A jury trial (has) (has not) been requested. If a jury trial was

18

requested, (indicate the appropriate selection):

19

1. the parties stipulate the request was timely and properly made;

20

2. the (Plaintiff or Defendant) contends the request was untimely made because:

21

(explain why request was untimely); or

22

3. the (Plaintiff or Defendant contends that although the request for trial by jury

23

was timely, the request is improper as a matter of law because: (indicate the legal

24

basis why a jury trial would be improper).

25

For a Bench Trial

26

N-1. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW shall

27

be filed and served by each party in accordance with the instructions contained

28

-5-

1

in the Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference.

2

For a Jury Trial

3

N-2.STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, PROPOSED VOIR DIRE

4

QUESTIONS, AND PROPOSED FORMS OF VERDICT shall be filed in

5

accordance with the instructions contained in the Order Setting Final Pretrial

6

Conference.

7

O. CERTIFICATIONS. The undersigned counsel for each of the parties in this

8

action do hereby certify and acknowledge the following:

9

1. All discovery has been completed.

10

2. The identity of each witness has been disclosed to opposing counsel.

11

3. Each exhibit listed herein (a) is in existence; (b) is numbered; and (c) has been

12

disclosed and shown to opposing counsel.

13

4. The parties have complied in all respects with the mandates of the Court's Rule

14

16 Order and Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference.

15

5. [Unless otherwise previously ordered to the contrary], the parties have made

16

all of the disclosures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

18

__________________________________ _________________________________

19

Attorney for Plaintiff

Attorney for Defendant

20

Based on the foregoing,

21

IT IS ORDERED that this Proposed Pretrial Order jointly submitted by the parties

22

is hereby APPROVED and is thereby ADOPTED as the official Pretrial Order of this Court.

23

DATED this ______ day of ______________________, _________.

24
25

_________________________

26

Stephen M. McNamee
Senior United States District Judge

27
28

-6-