This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Misappropriated Trade Secrets
Unfair Competition

Doug Mockett & Company, Inc. v. Roger Plumley

Published: Jul. 6, 1996 | Result Date: Apr. 3, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC094386 –  $0

Judge

Florence-Marie Cooper

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Sanford Astor

Edward J. O'Connor
(Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith LLP)


Defendant

Bradford E. Mattes

Neil D. Martin

Marshall A. Lerner


Experts

Plaintiff

Paul Weast
(technical)

Defendant

Howard C. Rile Jr.
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiff, Doug Mockett & Company, Inc., sold plastic wire handling grommets. The defendant, Roger Plumley, was a salesperson for the plaintiff's manufacturer. The plaintiff's sole stockholder, Doug Mockett, alleged that the defendant signed a confidentiality agreement on September 1, 1989. The plaintiff alleged that he disclosed in confidence a pivoting tab grommet to the defendant in a letter dated June 19, 1991 and the defendant wrongfully misappropriated the invention. The defendant contended that he invented the grommet first. The defendant also contended that the confidentiality agreement was forged and that the plaintiff's alleged conception documents were backdated. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on misappropriation of trade secret, breach of fiduciary duty an unfair competition theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

There were no meaningful settlement discussions.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $_____________ in damages.

Other Information

The first trial resulted in a hung jury (8 to 4 for the defendant) and the court declared a mistrial. The court rendered a bench decision in favor of the defendant on the equitable causes of action, and awarded attorney's fees to the defendant as reported. The findings on the equitable claims had a collateral estoppel effect which extinguished all of the plaintiff's claims. The court specifically found that the plaintiff's evidence was forged and back-dated and that the plaintiff got the idea for his product by viewing the defendant's advertising.

Deliberation

_____ hours/days

Poll

____ - ____ (numbers pls.)

Length

_____ weeks/days


#92407

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390