{"id":656,"date":"2013-08-15T16:25:08","date_gmt":"2013-08-15T16:25:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/"},"modified":"2013-08-15T16:25:08","modified_gmt":"2013-08-15T16:25:08","slug":"strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cStrong\u201d Circumstantial Evidence May Not Be Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment on A Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim in Georgia (At Least In Some Instances)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Georgia Court of Appeals recently refused to allow \u201cstrong\u201d circumstantial evidence to defeat summary judgment with respect to a misappropriation of trade secrets claim.\u00a0 In <em>Contract Furniture Refinishing &amp; Maintenance Corp. v. Remanufacturing &amp; Design Grp., LLC<\/em>, 317 Ga. App. 47, 730 S.E.2d 708 (2012), the employer (doing business as The Refinishing Touch (\u201cTRT\u201d)) alleged that certain sales and marketing \u201crecap reports\u201d constituted its trade secrets because such reports included lists of current and prospective customer contact information, current and prospective customer leads, and customer quote amounts.\u00a0 <em>Id. <\/em>at 52-53, 712.\u00a0 TRT had granted its employee, Scott Deutsch, access to these recaps in conjunction with his employment. \u00a0<em>Id.<\/em>\u00a0 While Deutsch was still employed by TRT, he signed an operating agreement for Remanufacturing &amp; Design Group, LLC (\u201cRDG\u201d), along with two other individuals.\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em> at 49, 710.\u00a0 Under the operating agreement each individual, including Deutsch, owned one-third of the company.\u00a0 <em>Id.\u00a0 <\/em>Additionally, under the operating agreement, Deutsch was in charge of running operations for RDG, and he began these duties in October 2008, while still employed with TRT.\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em>\u00a0 Deutsch resigned from TRT in February 2009 and left his company-issued cellphone, truck, and laptop at the home of TRT\u2019s operations manager, along with his resignation letter.<em>\u00a0 Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>TRT filed suit against Deutsch alleging multiple causes of action, including misappropriation of trade secrets.\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em>\u00a0 Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Deutsch on TRT\u2019s trade secrets claims, reasoning that TRT \u201cfailed to establish it has trade secrets and further that it has failed to adequately protect as confidential the information Plaintiff considers trade secrets.\u201d\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em> at 52, 713.\u00a0 TRT appealed.<\/p>\n<p>In considering the misappropriation of trade secrets claim, the Georgia Court of Appeals considered the evidence that TRT presented.\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em> at 52-57, 713-15.\u00a0 Specifically, the court examined evidence that TRT had proffered which showed that RDG was successful on two bids with three specific customers after TRT had provided Deutsch with information about those leads.\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em> at 52, 713.\u00a0 TRT also pointed to evidence \u201cregarding the connection of a flash drive between Deutsch\u2019s personal computer and his company-issued laptop the day before he resigned.\u201d\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em>\u00a0 Finally, TRT stated that upon inspecting Deutsch\u2019s computer, it discovered that the computer had been \u201cstripped of all of TRT\u2019s proprietary and trade secret files.\u201d\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em> at 54, 713.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, Deutsch testified that he did not retain any papers or reports from TRT; he denied downloading or saving any email attachments sent to him by TRT; he denied copying any files to a flash drive or CD; and he denied giving any TRT company information to anyone at RDG or anyone else (except for that information which he disclosed in relation to the work he performed for TRT).\u00a0 <em>Id. <\/em>With respect to the specific successful bids that TRT pointed to, Deutsch and the other two owners of RDG, testified that such bids had come from other sources.\u00a0 <em>Id. <\/em>at 54-55, 713-14.<\/p>\n<p>In its analysis, the Georgia Court of Appeals focused on whether TRT had demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact that Deutsch had misappropriated any of TRT\u2019s information.\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em> at 55, 714.\u00a0 After quoting the definition of \u201cmisappropriation\u201d provided by the Georgia Code, the court stated, \u201cTRT presents only circumstantial evidence to support its allegation that Deutsch disclosed or used its trade secrets.\u201d <em>Id. <\/em>at 56, 714.\u00a0 The court further reasoned that, in considering a motion for summary judgment \u201ca finding of fact that may be inferred from, but is not demanded by, circumstantial evidence has no probative value against positive and uncontradicted evidence that no such fact exists, provided that the circumstantial evidence may be construed consistently with the direct evidence.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> (citing <em>White v. Shamrock Bldg. Sys.<\/em>, 294 Ga. App. 340, 669 S.E.2d 168 (2008)).\u00a0 Even though TRT produced \u201cstrong\u201d circumstantial evidence that Deustch may have used or disclosed trade secrets, the court found that such evidence was also consistent with an explanation that Deustch did not misappropriate any information.\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em> The court thus affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Deutsch on TRT\u2019s misappropriation of trade secrets claim, finding that TRT\u2019s evidence had no probative value.\u00a0 <em>Id.<\/em> at 57, 715.<\/p>\n<p>In so ruling, the Georgia Court of Appeals seems to indicate that circumstantial evidence (perhaps even \u201cstrong\u201d circumstantial evidence) offered in support of a misappropriation of trade secrets claim may not defeat a motion for summary judgment on such a claim, so long as another \u201cstory,\u201d which is supported by uncontradicted testimony, can be told with such evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Georgia Court of Appeals recently refused to allow \u201cstrong\u201d circumstantial evidence to defeat summary judgment with respect to a misappropriation of trade secrets claim.\u00a0 In Contract Furniture Refinishing &amp; Maintenance Corp. v. Remanufacturing &amp; Design Grp., LLC, 317 Ga. App. 47, 730 S.E.2d 708 (2012), the employer (doing business as The Refinishing Touch (\u201cTRT\u201d)) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_mo_disable_npp":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,9],"tags":[16,29],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>\u201cStrong\u201d Circumstantial Evidence May Not Be Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment on A Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim in Georgia (At Least In Some Instances) - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cStrong\u201d Circumstantial Evidence May Not Be Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment on A Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim in Georgia (At Least In Some Instances) - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Georgia Court of Appeals recently refused to allow \u201cstrong\u201d circumstantial evidence to defeat summary judgment with respect to a misappropriation of trade secrets claim.\u00a0 In Contract Furniture Refinishing &amp; Maintenance Corp. v. Remanufacturing &amp; Design Grp., LLC, 317 Ga. App. 47, 730 S.E.2d 708 (2012), the employer (doing business as The Refinishing Touch (\u201cTRT\u201d)) [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-08-15T16:25:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin-bfv\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin-bfv\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/\",\"name\":\"\u201cStrong\u201d Circumstantial Evidence May Not Be Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment on A Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim in Georgia (At Least In Some Instances) - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2013-08-15T16:25:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-08-15T16:25:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9083f2b0128a3cb69e9914047bb696ca\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u201cStrong\u201d Circumstantial Evidence May Not Be Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment on A Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim in Georgia (At Least In Some Instances)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/\",\"name\":\"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.\",\"description\":\"A Business Law Firm In Atlanta\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9083f2b0128a3cb69e9914047bb696ca\",\"name\":\"admin-bfv\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin-bfv\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/author\/admin-bfv\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u201cStrong\u201d Circumstantial Evidence May Not Be Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment on A Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim in Georgia (At Least In Some Instances) - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cStrong\u201d Circumstantial Evidence May Not Be Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment on A Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim in Georgia (At Least In Some Instances) - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","og_description":"The Georgia Court of Appeals recently refused to allow \u201cstrong\u201d circumstantial evidence to defeat summary judgment with respect to a misappropriation of trade secrets claim.\u00a0 In Contract Furniture Refinishing &amp; Maintenance Corp. v. Remanufacturing &amp; Design Grp., LLC, 317 Ga. App. 47, 730 S.E.2d 708 (2012), the employer (doing business as The Refinishing Touch (\u201cTRT\u201d)) [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/","og_site_name":"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","article_published_time":"2013-08-15T16:25:08+00:00","author":"admin-bfv","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin-bfv","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/","url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/","name":"\u201cStrong\u201d Circumstantial Evidence May Not Be Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment on A Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim in Georgia (At Least In Some Instances) - Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-08-15T16:25:08+00:00","dateModified":"2013-08-15T16:25:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9083f2b0128a3cb69e9914047bb696ca"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/strong-circumstantial-evidence-may-not-be-enough-to-defeat-summary-judgment-on-a-misappropriation-of-trade-secrets-claim-in-georgia-at-least-in-some-instances\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u201cStrong\u201d Circumstantial Evidence May Not Be Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment on A Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim in Georgia (At Least In Some Instances)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/","name":"Berman Fink Van Horn P.C.","description":"A Business Law Firm In Atlanta","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/9083f2b0128a3cb69e9914047bb696ca","name":"admin-bfv","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin-bfv"},"url":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/author\/admin-bfv\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/656"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=656"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/656\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=656"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=656"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bfvlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}