Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke is a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, specializing in litigation. Her expertise lies in the field of trade secrets, making her the go-to counsel for prominent companies such as Intel, Snap, and Applied Materials, Inc.

Over the past two years, Luedtke defended numerous clients facing trade secret claims. Her track record includes obtaining multiple motions to dismiss and securing affirmations of these favorable rulings from various appellate courts. However, her practice extends beyond public litigation matters, encompassing confidential pre-litigation and investigation cases. In these cases, she addresses trade secret allegations and disputes, ranging from commercial disputes involving trade secrets in acquisitions to joint ventures' dissolution and trade secret rights allocation.

One of her notable cases as lead counsel centered on defending Bok-Heon Kim, a former ASM employee and current Applied Materials executive, against allegations that he intended to breach a noncompete agreement and use trade secrets in his role at Applied. ASM America Incorporated v. Kim , 2:22-cv-01400 (D. Ariz., filed Aug. 18, 2022).

Luedtke successfully opposed ASM's request for an injunction, leading to a confidential settlement after ASM withdrew its federal court litigation and refiled in state court.

Another significant case was representing Carrington Mortgage Services and executive Fred Quick. The lawsuit alleged that Carrington and Quick improperly encouraged Freedom Mortgage Corporation employees to join Carrington, leading to the theft of trade secrets and breaches of non-solicitation agreements. Luedtke's litigation strategy in New Jersey federal court resulted in a favorable settlement, allowing the team to continue working at Carrington.

Luedtke's work is notable for her defense in cases where noncompetition and employee non-solicitation agreements were enforced against executives who moved to competitors. Her success highlights the ongoing use of restrictive covenants outside California despite proposed FTC rules against noncompetes.

"In litigation involving enforcement of restrictive covenants outside California, so much of the analysis is factual and an assessment of reasonableness that it is important to know the local climate and appetite for restriction in a particular region and in a particular courtroom," Luedtke said. "That can be challenging to assess as an out-of-state lawyer."

"If the FTC rules barring noncompetes nationally are ultimately adopted and survive any legal challenge, resulting in the removal of noncompetes from all employment agreements, this will place further importance on the use of trade secret statutes to protect valuable confidential information when employees leave for competitors," Luedtke continued. "I would assume this will lead to more trade secret litigation as a vehicle to address that employee movement and to try to restrict the improper use of confidential information. To further that protection, it will be important for companies to be thinking about the protections they have in place to show the existence of trade secrets and to prove misappropriation by departing employees."