## Facts

- Paul Stoneham worked for The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) for about thirteen years and became a senior marketing manager in P&G’s hair-care division with international responsibilities.
- In that role, Stoneham participated in high-level planning and was required to use market research, financial/profitability data, and product-development information relating to hair-conditioning products.
- Stoneham helped compile and analyze market-research information and participated in creating a confidential long-range strategic plan for a key conditioner brand.
- Stoneham signed a confidentiality agreement at the start of his employment.
- After about ten years, Stoneham accepted stock options in exchange for signing a noncompetition agreement barring work for competitors for three years after leaving P&G.
- Stoneham left P&G to become president of the international arm of Alberto-Culver, a manufacturer of hair conditioners competing with P&G.
- P&G alleged the new job would involve use of its confidential information and trade secrets and would breach the noncompete.

## Issues

1. Whether P&G presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence and enforceability of a noncompetition agreement supported by consideration.
2. Whether P&G presented sufficient evidence that Stoneham had access to information that could qualify as trade secrets and that P&G used reasonable secrecy measures.
3. Whether the trial court erred by granting a Civ.R. 41(B) dismissal at the close of P&G’s case in a bench trial.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s Civ.R. 41(B) dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The appellate court held the dismissal was legally erroneous and against the manifest weight of the evidence presented in P&G’s case-in-chief.
- The court concluded P&G’s evidence was sufficient, at that stage, to support claims for breach of the noncompete and for trade-secret misappropriation or threatened misappropriation.

## Legal Principles

- In a nonjury trial, Civ.R. 41(B) permits dismissal after the plaintiff’s evidence only if, after weighing the evidence, the plaintiff has not shown a right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Evidence that an employee executed a written noncompetition agreement in exchange for stock options can be sufficient consideration to support an enforceable agreement, subject to reasonableness analysis.
- Under Ohio’s trade-secret statute (consistent with the UTSA), business information may qualify as a trade secret when it derives independent economic value from not being generally known and is protected by reasonable secrecy measures.
- Evidence of a former senior employee’s exposure to confidential strategic, financial, and product-development information, combined with movement to a direct competitor in a substantially related role, can be sufficient to proceed past dismissal on claims seeking injunctive relief for threatened misappropriation.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reinstated P&G’s contract and trade-secret claims because P&G introduced enough evidence in its case-in-chief to show a potentially enforceable noncompete and meaningful exposure to protectable confidential information, making dismissal under Civ.R. 41(B) improper before full adjudication.


Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio App. 3d 260, 747 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)