PEPSICO, INC. V. REDMOND 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995) CASE BRIEF

PEPSICO, INC. V. REDMOND

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

NATURE OF THE CASE: PepsiCo, Inc., (P) sought a preliminary injunction against William Redmond and the Quaker Oats Company (Ds) to prevent Redmond (D), a former P employee, from divulging P trade secrets and confidential information in his new job with Quaker and from assuming any duties with Quaker relating to beverage pricing, marketing, and distribution. The district court agreed with P and granted the injunction.

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.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner