Pyro Spectaculars North v. Souza
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
861 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (2012)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Pyro Spectaculars North, Inc. (PSI) (plaintiff) owed much of its success to its so-called booking forms, which contained decades’ worth of detailed information on PSI’s customers. PSI compiled that information at great expense and labor, which included independent research as well as through and extensive customer interaction. PSI’s booking forms included the budgets for each customer’s past fireworks shows, customer preferences and requirements, customer complaints, and the experience and qualifications of the drivers who delivered fireworks to each customer. PSI required all key employees, such as Steven Souza (defendant), to sign nondisclosure agreements to protect the booking forms’ confidentiality. Nevertheless, before leaving PSI to join one of PSI’s rivals, Souza surreptitiously copied information from the booking forms and made that information available to the rival, which used the information for its competitive advantage. PSI sued Souza for trade-secret misappropriation and petitioned the federal court for a preliminary injunction preventing Souza from further benefitting the rival. Souza acknowledged misappropriating the booking forms. However, Souza contended that the booking forms were not trade secrets because they contained no information that could not be gathered by interviewing PSI’s customers and checking public records.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hollows, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.