Rivendell Forest Products v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

824 F. Supp. 961 (1993)

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

Rivendell Forest Products v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

United States District Court for the District of Colorado
824 F. Supp. 961 (1993)

Facts

Rivendell Forest Products (Rivendell) (plaintiff), a reload wholesaler in the lumber industry, purchased lumber from Canadian mills and had it shipped to any one of around 10 lumber yards. Rivendell used a system (the Quote Screen system) to quote lumber prices, i.e., provide immediate final pricing, to its customers. The Quote Screen system pulled information from several databases to integrate data such as size, type, and location of lumber; freight charges; customer credit information; real-time inventories on distribution facilities; and real-time delivery status on inventory in transit on order with the Canadian mills to instantly calculate a price quote responsive to a customer’s inquiry in this manner. This system, according to Rivendell, produced quotes 20 to 30 times faster and generated two to three times more sales over competitors, providing Rivendell a competitive advantage. Timothy Cornwell worked for Rivendell for about three years, during which he supervised employees using the Quote Screen system. Rivendell obtained from all of its employees, including Cornwell, an executed confidentiality agreement promising to keep the Quote Screen system confidential. Rivendell also advised its employees that Rivendell’s business practices were considered trade secrets. After Cornwell left Rivendell, Georgia-Pacific Corp. (GP) (defendant) hired him, and four months later, GP launched its Quick Quote system, which was functionally identical to Rivendell’s Quote Screen system, even though there was no evidence that GP had copied any of Rivendell’s source code. Rivendell sued both GP and Cornwell in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, asserting claims for trade-secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a contract. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Finesilver, 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