The parties to Security Camera Warehouse, Inc. v. Bowman, 2017 NCBC 38, had been adverse to each other in a previous lawsuit (not in the Business Court), which they settled. Security Camera released Bowman, one of its former owners, from all claims in that settlement. But during the settlement negotiations which resulted in the settlement of lawsuit #1, Bowman had control of Security Camera’s computer server, and downloaded what Security Camera said was trade secret information (Security Camera’s customer list and other information regarding those customers).
After the settlement was done, Bowman incorporated Defendant Arcdyn to compete with Security Camera, using the customer information he took during the settlement discussions.
Security Camera, understandably aggrieved, sued Bowman and Arcdyn on a variety of theories, including misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty.
The Defendants said that these claims were barred by the Release. In his Opinion, Judge Conrad agreed and dismissed most of the claims.
Here are the terms of the Release: Security Camera and Nederlanden (who became the sole owner of Security Camera via the settlement) said that they:
generally release and forever discharge Bowman, his agents, heirs,successors and assigns, from any and all claims, demands, and causes of action of whatever kind or character which [Security Camera and Nederlanden] have, or may have in the future, against Bowman, based on any acts or events that have occurred on or before the execution of this Agreement, whether or not growing out of or connected in any way with operations or business transactions of [Security Camera].
Op. ¶8 (emphasis added).
Judge Conrad framed the issue as follows: “whether the parties’ mutual release bars recovery for the post-release use of a trade secret wrongfully acquired before the execution of the release.” Op. ¶24.
Don’t Release Claims Which You “May Have In The Future”
The Court dismissed as “untenable” Security Camera’s main argument that the release was not prospective.” The language contained in the Release, that it covered claims Security Camera “may have in the future,” made this pretty clear. Op. ¶28.
Judge Conrad noted that Security Camera had not limited the terms of the Release to preserve its trade secrets claims, and that the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets had happened before the execution of the Release. He said:
- In negotiating the release, Security Camera could have required Bowman to return its property, reserved any potential trade-secret claims, or refused to release claims accruing after the execution of the Agreement.
- It did not, and it is now far too late to import limitations that were not the subject of the parties’ bargain.
But not all of Security Camera”s claims were dismissed. The Court left standing a claim for the Defendants’ interference with a website which the Plaintiff claimed it owned (SCWddns.com). It said that the Defendants had disabled the website, and that it had to buy a new domain to restore its website.
Although the Defendants claimed that they owned the website, Judge Conrad found that there was an issue of fact on that point, and he refused to dismiss the claim. Op. ¶¶42-43.
On the subject of releases, it’s pretty common to release a party from all claims, whether “known or unknown” at the time of the release. So, it was not out of the ordinary for Security Camera to give up claims it was unaware of that arose during the settlement negotiations.