Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine

In the case of Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v.

Dole Food Co, Funk worked for Del Monte as a Senior Vice – President and was in charge of Research and Development for that company. He entered into a confidentiality agreement with Del Monte. Subsequently, Funk tendered his resignation from the job of vice – president after the completion of sixteen years of service with Del and joined another company by name of Dole as a Vice – President of Quality Assurance (Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co 2001).

Subsequently, Del Monte brought a petition against Dole and Funk seeking a preliminary injunction, in order to prevent the defendants from misuse of trade secrets. According to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, there are only two types of misappropriation, namely actual misappropriation and threatened misappropriation. The court while examining the case held that there was a third instrument, which is adopted by some courts, namely, inevitable disclosure and inevitable misappropriation. Del Monte sought the issue of the injunction order under the doctrines of threatened and inevitable disclosure.

The court stated that as the states of Florida and California had not adopted the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, it was unable to invoke this doctrine. The court further held that there was an absence of actual or threatened misappropriation and consequently it would not permit the plaintiff to invoke the inevitable disclosure instrument, which prohibits the employee from working for the plaintiff’s competitors (Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co 2001). Furthermore, the court insisted upon the plaintiff to prove threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.Moreover, the court found that there was no threatened disclosure.

The plaintiff’s plea was that Funk had been cognizant of the company’s secrets. However, there was no proof that Funk had taken any documents from the company that had been of a confidential nature. Further, even if Funk had possessed knowledge of Del Monte’s business, there was no evidence that he had any recollection of any confidential information and that he had used such confidential information for the benefit of the competitor. Hence the court concluded that there was no threat of misappropriation (Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co 2001).

The doctrine of inevitable disclosure is based on the fact that employees cannot maintain secrecy of information pertaining to their previous employment. They reveal their experience and expertise gained in their previous employment, while working on similar jobs with a new employer. Courts apply the doctrine of inevitable disclosure in the favor of former employers by issuing an injunction, which prohibits the employee from working for the competitors of his previous employer (Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co 2001).In order to prove a contention of inevitable disclosure, it is essential to establish that the employee had utilized the knowledge gained in his former job, in performing the new job.

As such the disclosure should be inevitable and to invoke this doctrine and obtain an injunction, the former employer must prove that the employee had access to the employer’s trade secrets. In addition, the employer has to prove that the new job with his competitor would inevitably entail such disclosure.The objective of the inevitable disclosure concept is to restrict or prevent misappropriation of the former employer’s trade secrets. This notion had been ratified by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act or UTSA, which had been adopted by the state of Colorado (Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co 2001).

Under the provisions of the UTSA, courts are permitted to combine actual and threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. The doctrine of inevitable disclosure of trade secrets very effectively prohibits employees by imposing a noncompete restriction.The noncompete agreements are unwelcome in the entire United States because they diminish the mobility of employees and hinder them from obtaining better remuneration for their intellectual competence and other skills. In spite of this, several state laws including Colorado have implemented such noncompete agreements in order to protect the trade secrets of businesses. The underlying reason for this is that the employers should not be discouraged from research and development and technological advancements, as such developments benefit the society at large.Thus the courts consider doctrine of inevitable disclosure to be an instrument that deals with threatened misappropriation and some of them treat it as the third instrument of action besides actual and threatened misappropriation, which is not justified by the UTSA (Del Monte Fresh Produce Co.

v. Dole Food Co 2001). In the present age of technological innovations and a highly competitive economic environment, the need for knowledgeable and expert employees is on the increase.It has become very common for employees to routinely resign from jobs in order to seek employment that fetches greater remuneration and in this process many employees obtain jobs with the competitors of their erstwhile employers. Consequently, many companies are adopting stricter measures in order to prevent their employees from disclosing important information or trade secrets to their competitors.

In order to achieve this objective employers are seeking the help of the courts (Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co 2001).