ProductiveMD, LLC v. 4UMD, LLC et al

Filing 65

ORDER:For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court hereby enters the following rulings: (1) Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 44) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED onl y insofar as ProductiveMD alleges in Count I that Defendant David Becker breached his duty of loyalty by misappropriating and conspiring with the other Defendants to misappropriate trade secrets, and only insofar as ProductiveMD alleges in Count V th at Defendants engaged in unfair competition by misappropriating and using trade secrets. The Motion is also GRANTED with respect to ProductiveMDs Civil Conspiracy claim as set forth in Count VII. In all other respects, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. (2) Defendants Motion to Ascertain Status (Docket No. 62) is deemed MOOT in light of the Courts ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 9/27/2011. (eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
PRODUCTIVEMD, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
4UMD, LLC, DAVID BECKER,
BILL KOTTAS, SR., SCOTT
HOLMES and MATT MACINTYRE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:10-1100
Judge Sharp

ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Court hereby enters the
following rulings:
(1) Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 44) is hereby GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED only insofar as ProductiveMD alleges
in Count I that Defendant David Becker breached his duty of loyalty by misappropriating and
conspiring with the other Defendants to misappropriate trade secrets, and only insofar as ProductiveMD
alleges in Count V that Defendants engaged in unfair competition by misappropriating and using trade
secrets. The Motion is also GRANTED with respect to ProductiveMD’s Civil Conspiracy claim as set
forth in Count VII. In all other respects, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
(2) Defendants’ Motion to Ascertain Status (Docket No. 62) is deemed MOOT in light of the
Court’s ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE