Summary
holding that "it was within the trial court's discretion to allow [the former employees] to compete against [the plaintiff-employer] using the experience, knowledge, and relationships they acquired prior to their employment relationship"
Summary of this case from Reilly v. Premier Polymers, L.L.COpinion
No. 05-02-01222-CV.
Opinion issued February 6, 2003.
Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 02-04828.
Affirmed.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction, Cardinal Health, Inc. (Cardinal) and Bindley Western Industries, Inc. (Bindley) contend in two issues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enjoin Laura Gasbarrino and Steven Staneff from continuing to work in the pharmaceutical trading industry or, alternatively, from soliciting or transacting business with Cardinal's customers. Because we find no abuse by the trial court, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Gasbarrino and Staneff are former employees of Bindley Trading Company (BTC), a division of Bindley. Staneff was also an officer of BTC, and Gasbarrino was a director. These relationships continued after Cardinal acquired Bindley in February 2001. Both Gasbarrino and Staneff had extensive experience in the pharmaceutical trading industry prior to working for BTC.
Gasbarrino and Staneff now plan to start a company that will compete with Cardinal using Gasbarrino's and Staneff's personal relationships with customers, vendors, and manufacturers that they established both prior to and during their employment with BTC and Cardinal. Cardinal and Bindley sought to enjoin Gasbarrino and Staneff from doing so, claiming Gasbarrino and Staneff were in possession of Cardinal's confidential information and would use that information adversely to Cardinal. Although the trial court enjoined Gasbarrino and Staneff from using Cardinal's confidential information, it did not prohibit them from working in the pharmaceutical trading industry or from contacting customers, vendors, and manufacturers with whom Gasbarrino or Staneff had a relationship prior to their employment with BTC. Cardinal and Bindley complain the temporary injunction entered by the trial court is too narrow.
The decision to grant or deny a temporary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse that decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993). We may neither substitute our judgment for that of the trial court nor consider the merits of the lawsuit. Rugen v. Interactive Bus. Sys., 864 S.W.2d 548, 550-51 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no writ). In making our review, we draw all legitimate inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order. Id. at 551. A trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law to the facts or when the evidence does not reasonably support the findings. Id.
A former employee may not use confidential or proprietary information acquired during the employment relationship adversely to his employer. Miller Paper Co. v. Roberts Paper Co., 901 S.W.2d 593, 600 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no writ); Rugen, 864 S.W.2d at 551. However, the trial court may allow the former employee to compete with the employer while restraining the former employee's use of confidential information. Miller Paper Co., 901 S.W.2d at 602; Rugen, 864 S.W.2d at 551; Reading Bates Constr. Co. v. O'Donnell, 627 S.W.2d 239, 242 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). This is particularly true when the former employee has experience, skill, and knowledge obtained prior to the employment relationship. Southwest Research Inst. v. Keraplast Techs., Ltd., No. 04-02-00589-CV, 2003 WL 45930, at *3 n. 3 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet. h.) ("In this case, Dr. Van Dyke was an experienced research scientist before he came to SWRI and began work on the Keraplast contracts. Keraplast may not seek to prevent Dr. Van Dyke from applying his own preexisting experience, skills and knowledge within the field of keratin-based research."); O'Donnell 627 S.W.2d at 242. Accordingly, it was within the trial court's discretion to allow Gasbarrino and Staneff to compete against Cardinal using the experience, knowledge, and relationships they acquired prior to their employment relationship with BTC.
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enjoin Gasbarrino or Staneff from (1) competing with Cardinal in the pharmaceutical trading business or (2) contacting any of Cardinal's customers, vendors or manufacturers. See O'Donnell, 627 S.W.2d at 242 ("However, the fact that the trial judge could have issued a much broader injunction than he did does not imply that he abused his discretion."). We overrule issues one and two and affirm the trial court's judgment.