Ed Nowogroski Insurance, Inc. v. Rucker

Michael Rucker, Darwin Rieck, and Jerry Kiser (plaintiffs) worked for Ed Nowogroski Insurance, Inc. (Nowogroski) (defendant) as insurance salesmen. Rucker, Rieck, and Kiser left Nowogroski to work for Potter, Leonard, and Cahan, Inc. (PLC), a rival insurance agency. While at PLC, Rucker, Rieck, and Kiser used information they had memorized about Nowogroski’s customers to solicit sales for PLC. The information came from Nowogroski’s confidential client files, was not readily available to the public, and was information that gave Nowogroski a competitive advantage. Nowogroski did not have employees sign a formal confidentiality agreement but did mandate confidentiality training. Nowogroski sued Rucker, Rieck, and Kiser under Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act for misappropriation of trade secrets, arguing that Rucker, Rieck, and Kiser had misappropriated confidential client information without consent. Rucker, Rieck, and Kiser countered, arguing that it was not misappropriation because they had memorized the client information and had not stolen physical files. The trial court held that Rucker, Rieck, and Kiser had misappropriated Nowogroski’s confidential client files and that those confidential files were trade secrets. However, because Rucker, Rieck, and Kiser used memorized information, rather than written information, the trial court did not award damages. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the damages award and held that both written information and memorized information were subject to trade-secret protections. Rucker, Rieck, and Kiser appealed.