Marvin Lumber & Cedar Company v. Severson

Filing 55

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated July 7, 2015 37 . 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 9 , is GRANTED IN PART and DEN IED IN PART, as follows: a. Defendant is preliminarily enjoined from using and/or disclosing any trade secret or confidential information Defendant acquired as a result of his employment with Plaintiff; b. Through August 13, 2016, Defendant is pr eliminarily enjoined from directly or indirectly soliciting business from Marvin's dealers or Marvin's dealers customers with whom Defendant worked during his employment at Marvin; and c. Defendant is permitted to continue working as VerH alen's general manager, except for direct management of VerHalens commercial window sales. 3. The Court concludes that, as Defendant has stipulated to the terms of the preliminary injunction, no security is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 9/28/15. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

MARVIN LUMBER & CEDAR COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER
Civil File No. 15-1869 (MJD/LIB)

LEN SEVERSON,
Defendant.
Daniel Oberdorfer, Jennifer V. Ives, Kristin Berger Parker, and Tracey Holmes
Donesky, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Joel P. Schroeder, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Counsel for Defendant.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated July 7,
2015. Paragraph 3 of the recommended Order, as set forth in the Report and
Recommendation, states that “Defendant be permitted to continue working as
VerHalen’s general manager, except for direct management of VerHalen’s
commercial window sales, as articulated herein.” (R&R at 18.) Plaintiff Marvin
Lumber & Cedar Company (“Marvin”) filed limited objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Specifically, Plaintiff objects only that this Court should
1

modify paragraph 3 of the recommended Preliminary Injunction to prohibit
Defendant Len Severson from managing VerHalen’s commercial and trade sales.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Brisbois dated July 7, 2015.
First, the evidence in the record shows that VerHalen maintains a clear
distinction between commercial and trade sales, and Severson’s current position
does not include interaction with VerHalen’s commercial sales. Second, while
Marvin has submitted evidence that there is more of an overlap between
commercial and trade sales at Marvin than at VerHalen, the evidence also shows
that Severson focused almost all of his work at Marvin on commercial space and
had limited involvement in residential space. Third, Severson’s current position
as general manager does not involve direct sales but rather focuses on oversight
of three departments: operations, project support, and trade sales. The
Preliminary Injunction already enjoins Severson from “directly or indirectly
soliciting business from Marvin’s dealers or Marvin’s dealers’ customers with
whom Defendant worked during his employment at Marvin.” Thus, to the

2

extent that Severson did work with trade customers at Marvin and to the extent
that commercial customers with whom Severson worked also work in the trade
arena, Severson is already enjoined from directly or indirectly soliciting those
entities’ business. The Court concludes that, overall, the restrictions in the
Preliminary Injunction are reasonable and sufficient to protect Marvin’s
legitimate business interests. Additional constraints would be overbroad and
unduly restrictive.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated July 7, 2015 [Docket No. 37].
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Docket No. 9], is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
a. Defendant is preliminarily enjoined from using and/or
disclosing any trade secret or confidential information
Defendant acquired as a result of his employment with
Plaintiff;
b. Through August 13, 2016, Defendant is preliminarily
enjoined from directly or indirectly soliciting business from
Marvin’s dealers or Marvin’s dealers’ customers with
whom Defendant worked during his employment at
Marvin; and

3

c. Defendant is permitted to continue working as VerHalen’s
general manager, except for direct management of
VerHalen’s commercial window sales.
3. The Court concludes that, as Defendant has stipulated to the terms of
the preliminary injunction, no security is required under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 65(c).

Dated: September 28, 2015

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

4