Alfano Law Office, PLLC

Alfano Law Office, PLLC
Phone: (603) 856-8411 • Fax (603) 290-5521
4 Park Street, Concord, NH 03301
  • Home
  • Real Estate Law
    • Road Law
    • Commercial Real Estate Law
    • Tax Abatements
    • Business Law
  • Estate Planning
  • About Us
    • Paul J. Alfano, Attorney
    • John F. Hayes, Attorney
    • David Howard, Attorney
    • Ariana Baldasaro McQuarrie, Attorney
    • Jason Curtis, Attorney
    • Privacy Policy
  • Articles
  • Contact Us
    • Directions
  • Road Law Guide
  • NH Tax Abatement
    • Tax Abatement Team
    • Grounds for Abatement
    • Municipal Application
    • Owners of Properties Outside New Hampshire
    • Transfer Tax Allocation
    • Recent Laws and Rulings
  • Resources and Links
    • Calendar and Key Dates
    • Equalization Ratio
    • NAPTA
Home » Blog » GTI Spindle Technology v. Bukowitz

GTI Spindle Technology v. Bukowitz

Summary Judgment Denied in Trade Secrets Dispute

In a November 7, 2022, Order handed down by the Superior Court for the Northern District of Hillsborough (the “Court”), Defendants David Bukowitz, Paul Berberian, and Jose Flores (“Defendants”) failed to persuade the Court that summary judgment was appropriate in an action brought against them for various alleged violations of trade secrets and breach of their employment non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”).

What started out as a hopeful employee/employer relationship soon turned sour, when Plaintiff GTI Spindle Technology, Inc., (“Plaintiff”) became suspicious of Defendants dealings with its customers and development of products without notifying Plaintiff. Defendants then left Plaintiff’s employment to work for a competing company and began working for several of Plaintiff’s clients. Plaintiff responded by filing an action alleging that Defendants misappropriated its trade secrets and breached their employment nondisclosure agreements (“NDAs”), and Defendants moved for summary judgment on the matter.

The Court began its opinion by explaining New Hampshire’s motion for summary judgment evaluation standards, stating that summary judgement is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits filed, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” RSA 491:8-a, III.

Defendants first argued that Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy of their trade secrets and confidential information, and therefore they committed no breach and are entitled to judgment as a matter of law in accordance with summary judgment standards. Plaintiff argued in response that the adequacy of the measures it took to preserve secrecy is a question of fact, making summary judgment inappropriate at this juncture. The Court pointed to New Hampshire’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (“NHUTSA), which does not specify the protective measures that need to be taken to maintain trade secrets, but simply says the measures must be “reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” RSA 350-B:1, IV. Additionally, the Court noted that while although the New Hampshire Supreme Court has not specifically addressed this issue, courts in other jurisdictions with similar laws in place have held that whether appropriate measures to maintaining secrecy were taken is a highly fact-specific analysis generally inappropriate for summary judgment. See e.g. Rockwell Graphic Sys., Inc. v. DEV Indus., Inc., 925 F.2d 174, 179 (7th Cir. 1991). The Court found that not only was there a question regarding the reasonableness of the steps taken by Plaintiff, but the parties were also in complete disagreement as to what those steps even were, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Regarding Defendants’ claims that their non-disclosure agreements were unenforceable, the Court took issue with Defendants’ supporting case law (ACAS Acquisitions (Precitech) Inc. v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381, 389 (2007)), finding that the three-ponged test utilized in ACAS Acquisitions was more appropriate in the evaluation of non-compete agreements, rather than non-disclosure agreements. The Court reasoned, “[n]oncompete agreements may materially limit employees’ ability to work in the same industry, while nondisclosure agreements only prohibit employees from misappropriating employers’ confidential information. It strikes the Court as unreasonable for an employee to claim that not being able to disclose his employer’s confidential information is an unenforceable restriction on employment.” The Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to this claim as well because it found the NDAs not unreasonable.

You can contact Alfano Law Office by calling (603) 856-8411 or at this link.

Filed Under: Court Updates

The above information is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Subscribe to the Alfano Law Property Rights Alert

Sign Up Now

For Email Newsletters you can trust.

NH Tax Abatement

  • Road Law Guide
  • NH Tax Abatement
    • Tax Abatement Team
    • Grounds for Abatement
    • Municipal Application
    • Owners of Properties Outside New Hampshire
    • Transfer Tax Allocation
    • Recent Laws and Rulings
  • Resources and Links
    • Calendar and Key Dates
    • Equalization Ratio
    • NAPTA

NH Real Estate Law Articles

  • Airbnb
  • Common Neighborly Legal Issues
  • Court Updates
  • Dealing with Neighbors
  • Easements
  • Estate Planning
  • General
  • Historic Designation
  • Legal Documents
  • Legal Terms
  • Legislation
    • Business Law
  • Living Trust
  • New Hampshire Property Tax Alerts
  • Private Road Maintenance
  • Private Roads
  • Property
  • Property Investments
  • Property Rights
  • Property Tax
  • Property Tax Law
  • Quieting Title
  • Real Estate Law
  • Revocable Trust
  • Road Law
  • Tax Abatement
  • Taxes
  • Zoning Boards of Adjustments

Recent Articles

A Landmark Decision on Short-Term Rentals and Zoning

Town of Conway v. Kudrick: A Landmark Decision on … [Read More...]

A Lesson in Preemption and Local Zoning Ordinances

Joy Street, LLC v. Town of Chesterfield: A Lesson in … [Read More...]

Confirm Your Boundary Lines Before Purchasing Property

When buying a new house, it is important to have a property … [Read More...]

Clearview Realty Ventures, LLC v. City of Laconia

Clearview Realty Ventures, LLC v. City of Laconia: Can a … [Read More...]

Article Archives

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Alfano Law Office, PLLC, 4 Park Street, Concord, NH 03301 USA | Phone: (603) 856-8411
Copyright © 2023 · Alfano Law Office, PLLC. All Rights Reserved · Website design by InterActive Synergy, LLC