Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond

54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D worked for P and eventually became the General Manager of the business unit covering all of California, a unit having annual revenues of more than 500 million dollars and representing twenty percent of P's profit in sports and new age drinks for all of the United States. D had access to inside information and trade secrets. D had signed a confidentiality agreement. Donald Uzzi, who had left P in the beginning of 1994 to become the head of Quaker's Gatorade division, began courting D for Quaker in May 1994. Quaker offered D the position of Vice President--On-Premise Sales for Gatorade. D continued to negotiate for more money. D kept his dealings with Quaker secret from his employers at P. An offer was made on November 8, 1994, and D accepted. D called human resources and told them he had an offer from Quaker to become the Chief Operating Officer of the combined Gatorade and Snapple company but had not yet accepted it. D lied to everyone at P about his status. Two days later he told management he decided to accept the Quaker offer and was resigning. P immediately said it was considering legal action against him. P sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin D from assuming his duties at Quaker and to prevent him from disclosing trade secrets or confidential information to his new employer. The district court granted P's request that same day but dissolved the order sua sponte two days later, after determining that P had failed to meet its burden of establishing that it would suffer irreparable harm. A preliminary injunction hearing was conducted, and P showed that D knew just about everything about P in intimate detail. The district court issued an order enjoining D from assuming his position at Quaker through May 1995, and permanently from using or disclosing any P trade secrets or confidential information. The primary issue on appeal is whether the district court correctly concluded that P had a reasonable likelihood of success on its various claims for trade secret misappropriation and breach of a confidentiality agreement.