RLM Communications, Inc. v. Tuschen

831 F.3d 190 (2016)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

RLM Communications, Inc. v. Tuschen

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
831 F.3d 190 (2016)

  • Written by Lauren Petersen, JD

Facts

Amy Tuschen (defendant) worked for RLM Communications, Inc. (RLM) (plaintiff), a company that provided cyber security and related needs to government agencies. At the time she was hired, Tuschen entered into a confidentiality agreement with RLM. Tuschen also signed a covenant not to compete or noncompete agreement with RLM. The noncompete agreement said that, for one year after leaving RLM, Tuschen could not directly or indirectly participate in any business similar to a business that RLM engaged in then or later. After six years at RLM, Tuschen went to work for eScience and Technology Solutions, Inc. (eScience) (defendant), a smaller company that directly competed with RLM for government contracts relating to information technology. Before leaving RLM, Tuschen copied several files from her company laptop onto a CD. Soon after starting at eScience, Tuschen helped eScience bid against RLM on a government contract. RLM sued Tuschen and eScience in state court for, among other things, breach of the noncompete agreement, breach of the confidentiality agreement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. RLM sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against Tuschen and eScience. The state court granted a temporary restraining order, but then the defendants removed the case to federal court. The federal district court also granted RLM a temporary restraining order. However, the federal district court ultimately granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed RLM’s claims. RLM appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Diaz, 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 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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