D.C. Court Addresses Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine For The First Time, Leaves Open Possibility For Future Use In Trade Secret Litigation

Addressing the "inevitable disclosure doctrine" for the first time, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's recent decision in Info. Strategies, Inc. v. Dumosch1 left open the possibility of the doctrine's use in establishing trade secret misappropriation claims. A shorthand method of proof, the inevitable disclosure doctrine creates an inference that a former employee will inevitably disclose trade secrets while working in similar employment with a competitor. Although the Info. Strategies court did not fully adopt the doctrine, the court suggested a degree of lenience at the pleading stage, specifically stating that "[the plaintiff employer] may not even have to allege the misappropriation of a specific trade secret" in its complaint.

The Case

Information Strategies, Inc. (InfoStrat) provides consulting services to public entities and private companies, a significant portion of which is dedicated to consultation regarding certain customer relationship management (CRM) software. For five years, InfoStrat employed the defendant employee, who gained knowledge of CRM customization while on the job. The former employee executed a Non-Disclosure/Non-Compete Agreement (the Agreement) with InfoStrat, which prohibited him from providing comparable services to any InfoStrat competitor in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. It further required that he refrain from disclosing any technical knowledge, inventions, or trade secrets belonging to the company during his employment and at all times afterwards.

In December of 2012, the employee resigned from InfoStrat and took a job with a consulting firm. InfoStrat alleged that prior to his resignation, it negotiated to work with the consulting firm on a project for the Veterans Administration (VA), whereby modified CRM software would be integrated with other VA information technology systems. InfoStrat modified the software for the VA in the past, and alleged that a VA employee suggested to the consultant that it hire InfoStrat to assist in the project. This never ended up happening.

In a meeting with the consulting firm a month after the employee resigned, InfoStrat was informed that it would not be hired for the project. At the same meeting, the employee allegedly made clear that he was working on CRM matters for the consulting firm, and that he specifically worked on the VA project that InfoStrat lost. InfoStrat further alleged that the employee disclosed proprietary information...