Skip to content

Menu

ChannelsPublishersSubscribe
LexBlog, Inc. logo
LexBlog, Inc. logo
ProductsSub-MenuBlogsPortalsTwentySyndicationMicrositesResource Center
Join
Search
Close
Join the Movement. Blog 4 Good

El Paso Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Trade Secrets Case

Non-disclosure agreement confidential, seal stamped on official document, close
(c) mortortion / Adobe Stock
By Heath Coffman
March 22, 2020
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn

In EJ Madison, LLC v. Pro-Tech Diesel, Inc., No. 08-17-00229-CV, 2019 WL 6242301, at *1 (Tex. App.–El Paso Nov. 22, 2019, no pet. h.), plaintiff Madison operated a trucking company and defendant Pro-Tech provided maintenance services to the trucks.  The parties entered into a non-disclosure agreement so they could work together on diesel-to-natural gas conversion kits for the trucks.  Additionally, Pro-Tech continued to provide general maintenance work for the trucks.

Madison eventually entered into an agreement with EL Hollingsworth for EL Hollingsworth to operate its trucks.  After the agreement, Pro-Tech continued to do the general maintenance work for EL Hollingsworth.  Meanwhile, Madison formed a separate entity to work with Pro-Tech on the conversion kit maintenance.

Eventually, the business relationship between Madison and Pro-Tech soured, and Madison sued Pro-Tech for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary, and violations of the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA).  Madison argued that Pro-Tech used its confidential information to enter into a business relationship with EL Hollingsworth.

The trial court disagreed, and the El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed.  Specifically, the court held that the parties’ non-disclosure agreement did not include the general maintenance work Pro-Tech had always performed.  Additionally, there was no TUTSA violation because Madison never kept the existence of EL Hollingsworth a secret from Pro-Tech, and Pro-Tech could have easily discovered EL Hollingsworth through trade journals.  Also, the court held that Madison’s evidence of damages–that it did not make introductions “for free”–was insufficient because there was no evidence that either EL Hollingsworth or Pro-Tech would have paid for the introduction.

Photo of Heath Coffman Heath Coffman

Heath Coffman is a shareholder at Brackett & Ellis, P.C. in Fort Worth, Texas.  His practice includes commercial litigation, intellectual property, collections, professional malpractice defense, fiduciary litigation, and appeals.  You can contact him directly at hcoffman@belaw.com.

Read more about Heath CoffmanEmail Heath's Linkedin ProfileHeath's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    The Fort Worth Business & Employment Law Reporter
  • Organization:
    Brackett & Ellis, P.C.
  • Article: View Original Source

Stay Connected

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers

Company

  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service

Products

  • Products
  • Blogs
  • Portals
  • Twenty
  • Syndication
  • Microsites

Support

  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Redefined Blog
  • Global Trade Law Blog
  • The Quick Take
  • Consumer Privacy World
  • Energy Law Report
Copyright © 2021, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By LexBlog