Townsend Chemical, LLC v. Shockley

Filing 12

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 3/23/2012. Dispositive Motions due by 4/23/2012. Trial set for 11/13/2012 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Pretrial Conference set for 10/22/2012 at 2:30 PM before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 8/9/11. (dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TOWNSEND CHEMICAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROCK T. SHOCKLEY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:11-00561
Judge Kevin H. Sharp
Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01(d), the following Initial Case Management Plan is adopted.
1.

Jurisdiction:

This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute on the basis of diversity of citizenship of the
parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2.

Plaintiff’s theory of the case:

Defendant Brock T. Shockley (“Shockley”) was formerly employed by Plaintiff
Townsend Chemical, LLC (“Townsend Chemical”) as a Sales Representative. In this capacity,
Shockley was given access to much confidential and proprietary information belonging to
Townsend Chemical.

This included, but is not limited to, confidential customer lists and

databases, sales reports, customer purchasing information, contract terms, pricing criteria, and
marketing strategies and plans.

Shockley also had regular access to Townsend Chemical

customers, establishing relationships with them as a representative of Townsend Chemical.
Shockley agreed to and executed two agreements while employed by Townsend
Chemical. The first was a Confidentiality Agreement, which was a condition of his continued

1

employment at Townsend Chemical. The Confidentiality Agreement mandated that Shockley
would not, post-employment, use, disclose, or disseminate any confidential, proprietary or trade
secret information belonging to Townsend Chemical.

The second agreement executed by

Shockley was denoted a Management Incentive Plan, which contained a restrictive covenant
against unfairly competing with Townsend Chemical for a period of two (2) years after cessation
of employment. Shockley agreed to this on September 7, 2010.
In late April 2011, Shockley informed Townsend Chemical that he planned to resign his
employment. Townsend Chemical tendered to him his incentive pay pursuant to the terms of the
Management Incentive Plan. Shockley, however, returned the check and informed Townsend
Chemical that he did not intend to abide by the terms of his restrictive covenant. Subsequently,
Townsend Chemical has learned that Shockley has begun employment with Crop Production
Services, Inc. (“CPS”), a direct competitor of Townsend Chemical, and in the same geographic
area as he formerly worked for Townsend Chemical. Shockley has been witnessed at vendor
sales meetings which are attended by Townsend Chemical customers, holding himself out as a
representative of the competitor CPS.
3.

Defendant’s theory of the case.

Prior to his resignation, and during the course of his two week notice period which
Plaintiff requested that he work, Shockley returned all information of Plaintiff and denies any
breach of the Confidentiality Agreement. Shockley also denies that he was provided information
during his employment that was not readily or publicly available or that was otherwise a
protectable interest and denies that either alleged agreement is enforceable on the basis of the
alleged provision by Plaintiff of any valuable or confidential information.

2

Shockley also denies that the Management Incentive Plan, specifically the provisions
regarding a restriction on competition, are enforceable. The Management Incentive Plan is
unsupported by valid consideration, as noted above, and the provisions regarding payment of
compensation to Shockley in exchange for any restrictive covenants are expressly reserved to be
at the discretion of Plaintiff and are not binding obligations. The attempt to pay Shockley at the
time of his resignation does not constitute valid consideration to support the making of a
contract.

In addition, the provisions regarding a covenant not to compete, if enforceable, are

overbroad and are not properly limited in time, scope, or geography. Plaintiff’s attempts to
enforce the noncompetition and nonsolicitation covenants constitute an unlawful restraint of
trade. Moreover, Shockley asserts that he has not engaged in unfair competition, has not used or
disseminated any confidential or proprietary information belonging to Townsend Chemical, and
otherwise has not engaged in any work or other activities that are unfairly competitive with
Townsend Chemical or that warrant the monetary or injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff.
Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in the Complaint.
4.

Identification of the issues:

Jurisdiction and venue are not in dispute. All other issues in this civil action remain
unresolved.
5.

Need for other claims or special issues under Rules 13-15, 17-21, and Rule 23

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Not applicable.
6.

Witnesses, if known, subject to supplementation for each party.

Brock T. Shockley, Michelle Molin, John C. Poulter.

3

7.

Initial Disclosures and Staging of Discovery:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures will be served no later than August 22, 2011.
Further discovery deadlines are as follows:
Deadline for filing Motions to Amend the Pleadings:
For Plaintiff:

September 16, 2011

For Defendant:

October 14, 2011

Completion of All Discovery:
(a)

Written discovery:

March 23, 2012
March 23, 2012 (must be served in advance such

that responses will be due by deadline)
(b)

Expert disclosure (Rule 26(a)(2)):
For Plaintiff:

January 20, 2012

For Defendant:

February 17, 2012

Supplementation under Rule 26(e)(2):10 days after Defendant’s disclosure
.

(c)
(d)
8.

Deposition of Experts: March 23, 2012.
Deadline for filing discovery-related Motions is March 30, 2012.
April 23, 2012

Responses:

30.days after filing the Motion

Replies:
9.

Dispositive Motions:

14.days

after

Other deadlines:
None anticipated.

10.

Subsequent case management conferences:
.

.

4

filing

the

Response

.
.
11.

Alternate dispute resolution
The parties have not engaged in formal alternate dispute resolution. However, the

parties will contact the Court if such alternate dispute resolution is determined to be helpful.
12.

Trial date:
This case is set for trial on November 13, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable

Kevin H. Sharp. The pretrial conference is set for October 22, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.
It is so ORDERED.

E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge

5