## Facts

- Chris Botticella worked for Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. from 2001 and became Vice President of Operations for California, overseeing multiple production facilities and operational functions.
- In that role, he had broad access to confidential information and alleged trade secrets, including proprietary formulas and production processes.
- Botticella accepted an offer to work for Hostess Brands, Inc., a direct competitor, in a role found to be substantially similar to his Bimbo position.
- He did not promptly disclose his accepted offer to Bimbo and continued working for nearly three months while attending high-level meetings and accessing confidential materials.
- After Bimbo learned of his departure plans, it placed him on paid leave and requested he stop working.
- Forensic evidence indicated that shortly after this separation, 12 files were accessed and copied from Botticella’s work laptop to an external destination in a single, rapid operation.
- Bimbo sued in federal court alleging actual and threatened trade-secret misappropriation under Pennsylvania law and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Botticella from working for Hostess and from using or disclosing Bimbo information.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring Botticella from starting at Hostess and from divulging Bimbo confidential information pending trial; Botticella filed an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction based on actual or threatened trade-secret misappropriation under Pennsylvania law.
2. Whether the record supported a finding of a substantial threat that Botticella would use or disclose Bimbo’s trade secrets in a substantially similar role at a direct competitor, justifying injunctive relief without proof of completed misappropriation.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Bimbo likely to succeed on the merits of its trade-secret claim and likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.
- The court agreed that the balance of equities favored Bimbo despite the temporary employment restraint on Botticella.
- The court agreed that the injunction served the public interest in protecting trade secrets and fair competition and was supported by specific evidence beyond mere job mobility concerns.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) likely irreparable harm without relief, (3) balance of equities favoring the movant, and (4) consistency with the public interest.
- Under Pennsylvania law, threatened trade-secret misappropriation can support injunctive relief; a plaintiff need not wait for actual disclosure where circumstances show a substantial threat.
- A substantial threat may be inferred from combined evidence such as (1) high-level access to confidential information, (2) substantial similarity between the former and new positions at a competitor, and (3) suspicious or deceptive conduct suggesting intent to retain or use confidential materials.
- Loss of trade-secret protection and resulting competitive injury can constitute irreparable harm because disclosure or competitive use cannot readily be reversed and damages are difficult to quantify.
- Employment-restrictive relief must be justified by record evidence and tailored to the threatened harm, not imposed solely because an employee possesses confidential knowledge and seeks to work for a competitor.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction preventing a senior bakery executive from joining a direct competitor because the evidence supported a substantial threat of trade-secret misappropriation, and the traditional injunction factors favored temporary restraints to prevent irreparable competitive harm.


Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella, 613 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2010)