William LeJeune v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.
Maryland Court of Appeals
849 A.2d 451 (2004)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
William LeJeune (plaintiff) worked for Coin Acceptors, Inc. (Coinco) (defendant) in Maryland as a salesperson for several years. Coinco created, sold, and serviced coin acceptors, coin changers, and similar machines. Coinco sold its machines into three separate channels: vending, which included beverage bottlers; amusement, which included video-game manufacturers; and specialty, which included transit companies. LeJeune’s work focused primarily on the vending channel. During his employment, LeJeune worked from his home, using a work-issued computer. Coinco did not ask LeJeune to sign a confidentiality or noncompetition agreement. LeJeune ultimately decided to leave Coinco, and took a job with Mars, Inc., Coinco’s primary competitor. LeJeune’s role at Mars focused on the amusement channel. LeJeune returned his Coinco laptop after giving notice. Before doing so, he downloaded and retained multiple files, including pricing information relating to Coinco’s specialty channel and budgeting software, which contained Coinco’s manufacturing costs and profit margins. Coinco sued LeJeune for misappropriation of trade secrets. The lower court enjoined LeJeune from working for Mars under the inevitable-disclosure doctrine, finding that Coinco would suffer irreparable injury if LeJeune worked for Mars because LeJeune had misappropriated trade secrets that would inevitably give Mars an unfair advantage. LeJeune appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Battaglia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.