## Facts

- Cellular Accessories for Less, Inc. (CAFL) sold mobile phone accessories to business customers.
- David Oakes worked for CAFL as a sales account manager (2004–2010) and later became associated with competitor Trinitas LLC.
- Oakes signed an employment agreement restricting removal of CAFL proprietary information (including its customer base) without written approval.
- Oakes also signed a statement of confidentiality restricting disclosure or use of defined “Proprietary Information”; the parties disputed whether this statement formed an enforceable contract.
- Shortly before termination, Oakes emailed himself an ACT database file with contact information for 900+ business and personal contacts; CAFL alleged he also retained or sent himself customer purchasing contacts, billing preferences, pricing requests, and at least one internal strategy document.
- Oakes retained LinkedIn contact information after leaving CAFL.
- CAFL held a registered copyright covering website content (e.g., product descriptions and FAQs) and alleged Trinitas copied website text; Trinitas modified content after receiving notices.
- CAFL sued for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, and related business tort/statutory claims; defendants contested contract enforceability, trade secret status, and asserted copyright misuse.

## Issues

1. Whether the employment agreement and/or confidentiality statement were enforceable contracts and, if so, whether Oakes breached them by removing and retaining CAFL customer-related information.
2. Whether the ACT file and related customer information could qualify as protectable trade secrets under California law.
3. Whether Trinitas infringed CAFL’s website copyright and whether factual disputes precluded resolution of a copyright misuse defense at summary judgment.
4. Whether derivative business tort and statutory claims could be resolved on summary judgment given disputed facts tied to the contract, trade secret, and copyright theories.

## Decision

- CAFL’s motion for summary judgment was denied in full.
- Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
- The court declined to grant summary judgment to either side on breach of contract due to factual disputes about contract formation, scope, and breach.
- The court declined to grant summary judgment against CAFL on trade secret misappropriation because the record could support a finding that at least some customer information had economic value from secrecy and was subject to reasonable confidentiality measures.
- The court declined to grant summary judgment to CAFL on copyright infringement and held that disputed facts prevented summary adjudication of the copyright misuse defense.
- Claims and theories dependent on contested predicates generally remained for trial to the extent the underlying disputes persisted.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper when material facts permit competing inferences on contract formation, contractual obligations, and alleged breach.
- Customer-related information may constitute a trade secret if it is not generally known, derives economic value from secrecy, and the owner took reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality; a customer list combined with non-public customer-specific details can support trade secret protection.
- Copyright infringement claims may be limited by defenses such as copyright misuse when the copyright is allegedly used to secure market control beyond the statutory grant; factual disputes about enforcement conduct can preclude summary judgment.
- Where unfair competition and related business claims rest on disputed facts central to contract, trade secret, or copyright theories, those claims commonly cannot be resolved as a matter of law at summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court denied CAFL summary judgment and granted defendants summary judgment only in part, holding that genuine disputes of material fact required trial on key questions involving confidentiality agreements, alleged misappropriation of customer information, and website copyright enforcement, including the asserted copyright misuse defense.


Cellular Accessories for Less, Inc. v. Trinitas LLC, 65 F. Supp. 3d 909 (C.D. Cal. 2014)