Marsteller v. ECS Federal, Inc.

2013 WL 4781786 (2013)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Marsteller v. ECS Federal, Inc.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
2013 WL 4781786 (2013)

Facts

ECS Federal, Inc. (ECS) (defendant), a government contractor that performed tasks for the United States Postal Service (USPS), hired Jacqueline D. Marsteller (plaintiff) in November 2006. On her hiring date, Marsteller signed a proprietary information agreement, in which she agreed to keep ECS’s proprietary information confidential and that, upon leaving the employ of ECS, she would return to ECS all drawings, notes, memoranda, and other listed documents pertaining to ECS’s proprietary information. In November 2011, Marsteller, who had become a senior vice president and account executive for ECS, was notified that her employment was terminated, effective at the end of 2011. However, at Marsteller’s request, the parties agreed to move up the effective termination date to December 15, 2011. Later in December, Marsteller began working for Ausley Associates, Inc. (Ausley). On July 31, 2012, Ausley received International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification. Marsteller sued ECS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting claims for breach of contract and other causes of action. ECS counterclaimed for, among other things, trade-secret misappropriation under the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act (VUTSA). ECS’s counterclaim alleged that in November 2011, after Marsteller learned of her termination, she transferred highly proprietary ECS information to an external storage device without authorization and outside of ECS-related work activities. ECS alleged that this information included management-system documents that ECS had used to obtain ISO certification that, once granted, increases an organization’s value by allowing the organization to seek contracting work requiring such certification. Marsteller moved to dismiss ECS’s VUTSA counterclaim.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Cacheris, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership