Dh Vs Usa Case Study

ARGUMENT
UNDER THE OHIO UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT (“OUTSA), A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT, DERVIVES INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC VALUE, IS NOT BEING GENERALY KNOWN TO OTHER PERSONS, AND IS SUNBJECT TO EFFORTS OF SECRECY IS A TRADE SECRET.
I. DCH is entitled to preliminary injunction, because LH is a trade secret under OUTSA.
Preliminary injunctions should always be granted in case as like this, where there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. Vanguard Transp. Sys. V. Edwards Transfer & Storage Co. Gen. Commodities Div., 673 N.E.2d 182. (184). The burden of proof to establish this element of a preliminary injunction motion is by showing clear and convincing evidence. Id. The injunction can remain in effect until LH is no longer a trade secret. ORC s1333.62. Plaintiff DCH's Motion for Preliminary Injunction for LH should be granted because the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of LH being a trade secret under the OUTSA.
II. LH meets the criteria of element one of information that derives independent economic value.
Plaintiff has a cause of action for a violation of the OUTSA because Defendant took his
Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 707 N.E.2d 853, (Ohio 1999). The court found that the client list could be a trade secret, and defeated the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, because it was used to produce an economic value to the competitor by allowing them to solicit new clients to thee firm. Id.at 862. The client list contained hundreds of names, numbers, and address of clients, which took a considerable amount of time and expense to create. Id.at 862-63. The court held that the client list was a trade secret under the