## Facts

- Al Minor & Associates, Inc. (AMA) is an actuarial firm that designs and administers retirement plans and services hundreds of clients.
- AMA developed and maintained a client list and related client information that it treated as confidential and used only for firm business.
- Robert E. Martin was hired by AMA in 1998 as a pension analyst; he did not sign a noncompetition agreement or employment contract restricting competition.
- While still employed, Martin organized a competing firm to provide the same services as AMA.
- After resigning in 2003, Martin did not take AMA documents but solicited 15 AMA clients using client information retained in his memory.
- AMA sued seeking damages and injunctive relief, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under Ohio’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), R.C. 1333.61 et seq.

## Issues

1. Whether a former employee’s use of a memorized customer/client list to solicit business can constitute misappropriation of a trade secret under Ohio’s UTSA.
2. Whether trade-secret protection depends on the information being taken in tangible form (e.g., written or electronic) rather than retained in memory.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a client list does not lose trade-secret status merely because a former employee memorized it.
- The court affirmed the judgment for AMA, including the $25,973 damages award based on fees AMA would have earned from the solicited clients.
- The court left undisturbed the denial of injunctive relief.
- The court resolved a certified conflict by concluding that memorized customer lists may support UTSA liability.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.C. 1333.61(D), information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known and is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.
- UTSA protection turns on the character of the information and its improper use, not on whether the information was copied or retained in tangible form.
- Misappropriation may occur through use of protected confidential client information to solicit clients, even when the information is recalled from memory.
- A former employee may use general knowledge, skill, and experience gained in employment, but may not use specific confidential client information that qualifies as a trade secret.

## Conclusion

Ohio’s UTSA can be violated when a former employee solicits an employer’s clients using a memorized client list that otherwise meets the statutory definition of a trade secret; physical taking of documents is not required, and damages for such misappropriation may be awarded.


Al Minor & Assocs., Inc. v. Martin, 881 N.E.2d 850 (Ohio 2008)