Unison, LLC v. Wooten et al, No. 7:2010cv02680 - Document 37 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION:For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is instructed to file its amended complaint by October 21,2011. The Clerk is instructed to terminate this motion (Doc. # 25) . re: 25 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint. filed by Unison, LLC., ( Amended Pleadings due by 10/21/2011.), Motions terminated: 25 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint. filed by Unison, LLC. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 10/14/2011) (rj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
l:SDC SD:\Y DOCU:\tENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: _ _ _: - - -_ __ fX\TE nu:o: /0 J --, - It UNISON, LLC, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION v. 10 CV 2680 (VB) CARL E. WOOTEN, GREGG H. BUTLER, and JAMES BODAJLO, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------x BriccettL J.: Plaintiff moves for leave to amend its complaint (Doc. #25) pursuant to Rule 15. Plaintiff seeks to add Vertical Performance Partners, Inc. ("Vertical") as a defendant. For the following reasons, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1331. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a company that produces interactive meetings for large organizations, incorporating production elements such as video, animation, set design, and lighting. Plaintiff claims its meetings incorporate a unique communication tool comprised of specific information and computer processes. Plaintiff further claims that because its services are so highly specialized, it has developed a unique book of clients at substantial effort and expense. Plaintiff has also developed budgets and process templates for customizing its services to meet clients' needs. Plaintiff considers such information trade secrets. Defendants Carl E. Wooten, Gregg H. Butler, and James Bodajlo are former employees of plaintiff. Plaintiff claims Wooten formed Vertical's predecessor, Vertical Performance Partners LLC, on October 21,2009, while he was still employed by plaintiff. Wooten engaged 1 Butler and Bodajlo to assist in those efforts. Plaintiff claims defendants solicited plaintiffs clients on behalf of Vertical. Vertical Performance Partners LLC was merged into Vertical on March 26,2010. In July 2011, Vertical published a list of eighteen clients on its website for the first time. According to plaintiff, eleven of the eighteen were plaintiffs clients, to whom the defendants had no relevant connection before working for plaintiff. Plaintiff elaims Vertical's posting confirms that Vertical is working with plaintiff s clients, and thus has received and used plaintiff s trade secrets. Plaintiff asserts that until Vertical published its client list in July 2011, there was insufficient public information to conclude that Vertical had engaged in theft of plaintiffs trade secrets. DISCUSSION Rule 15(a)(2) provides that a party may amend its complaint only with the opposing party's consent or leave of court. While leave to amend should be "freely give[n] ... when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), "motions to amend should generally be denied in instances of futility, undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive ... or undue prejudice to the non moving party." Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). This decision is soundly within the Court's discretion. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184,200 (2d Cir. 2007). Defendant claims amendment would be futile because the complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss. When a party opposes leave to amend on futility grounds, the proper legal standard is whether the amendment fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)( 6). Solin v. Guardian 2 Ins. &Annuitv Co., 2011 WL 2161868, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011) (citing J3arrett v. United States Banknote Corp., 806 F. Supp. 1094,1098 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain the grounds upon which the claim rests through factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell AtL Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007). A plaintiff is obliged to amplify a claim with some factual allegations to allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged conduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). The function of a motion to dismiss is "merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof." Ryder Energy Distrib. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities. Inc., 748 F.2d 774,779 (2d Cir. 1984). When deciding a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all well-pleaded allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the pleader. I-Iishon v. King, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). Defendants argue plaintiff is unable to meet this standard because (1) the amended complaint does not identify information that would qualify as a trade secret, (2) any possible trade secrets were not properly maintained, and (3) plaintiff does not properly allege that Vertical used its trade secrets. Defendants' arguments fail. Plaintiff identifies potential trade secrets in its proposed amended complaint and alleges Vertical used those trade secrets. Plaintiff further alleges its trade secrets were maintained in secrecy. Defendants' evidentiary arguments are premature, and plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim. Defendants primarily argue that plaintiffs cause of action must fail because client lists are not trade secrets. Without reaching the merits of defendants' argument, the Court notes that while plaintiff does allege that its client lists qualify as trade secrets, it also identifies several other potential trade secrets, including client contact information, histories of client 3 engagements, meeting templates, customized combinations of data structures and production tools, and various computer software and code. Once plaintiff discovered that Vertical was working with many of plaintiff's clients, plaintiff reasonably suspected that defendants might be using those trade secrets in their work for those clients. Plaintiff could not have known defendants were working with its clients and thus potentially using its trade secrets - until Vertical published its client list. Thus, joinder would not be futile. Construing the proposed amended complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the pleading is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See R&M Jewelry, LLC v. Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 398,399 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). lfthe allegations in the amended complaint are true, the individual defendants are acting through Vertical, and Vertical should be joined as a defendant. Defendants also argue that plaintifT's motion should be denied because it acted with undue delay. This argument is unpersuasive. Plaintiff made its motion as soon as it discovered that Vertical was doing business with plaintiff's clients, and thus has provided a credible reason for its delay. Furthermore, an amended complaint would not prejudice defendants. Adding Vertical as a party will not delay the proceedings or require significant additional resources. See AEP Energy Services Gas Holding Co. v. Bank of America, N.A., 626 F.3d 699, 725-26 (2d Cir. 2010). Moreover, because Wooten is Vertical's president and one of its two directors, Vertical had notice of plaintiff's claims. Finally, amendment would promote judicial economy. Allowing plaintiff to bring its claims against all involved entities would resolve the merits of the dispute in a single action, and avoid a separate lawsuit against Vertical. 4 Thus, leave to amend the complaint is warranted in this case. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is instructed to file its amended complaint by October 21, 2011. The Clerk is instructed to terminate this motion (Doc. #25). ~, Dated: October \ 2011 White Plains, New York Vincent 1. Briccetti United States District Judge 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
