United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
BABCOCK POWER, INC., et al. PLAINTIFFS
STEPHEN T. KAPSALIS, et al. DEFENDANTS
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge United States District
matter is before the court on motion of the plaintiffs,
Babcock Power, Inc. and Vogt Power International, Inc.
(collectively “Babcock”), to alter and amend the
Permanent Injunction entered by the court on December 17,
2018 (DN 611, filed in redacted form). Babcock has also filed
motions for leave to seal its motion to alter and amend (DN
612) and to seal its reply (DN 624).
we take up Babcock's filing of redacted briefs and its
motions for leave to file unredacted versions under seal. The
motions to seal contain no particularity or justification
whatsoever for filing redacted briefs in the public record.
On that basis alone, the motions for leave to seal can and
will be denied.
Babcock has quoted and then redacted passages from two
documents. The court has found that both of these purported
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “FOR ATTORNEY'S EYES
ONLY” documents were previously ordered unsealed by the
magistrate judge. See DNs 254-2; 386; 326-23; 387,
so there is simply no argument to be made for sealing
Babcock's briefs on the basis that they contain quotes
from these documents. Babcock's motions for leave to seal
will be denied.
address the plaintiff's motion to alter and amend the
Permanent Injunction (DN 611).
court ordered that the defendant, Stephen T. Kapsalis,
“is PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED from using
or disclosing Babcock Power, Inc. and Vogt Power, Inc.'s
trade secret information consisting of its strategic plans
and schematic and mechanical drawings.” DN 608, PageID
#41049. Babcock has noted, and the court agrees, that
Kapsalis should also be required to return all copies of
trade secret information consisting of schematic and
mechanical drawings and strategic plans that are in
Kapsalis' possession, custody, and control. The injunction
will be modified to reflect this addition.
court also stated in the injunction that it “does not
apply to categories of information which were not found by
the jury to constitute misappropriated trade secrets, as the
confidentiality clause of the employment agreement in issue
expired by its own terms on April 11, 2018, the five-year
anniversary of Kapsalis' termination of his employment
with the plaintiffs.” Id.
seeks to amend the injunction to (1) permanently restrain
Kapsalis from “using disclosing, misusing, or further
converting the Plaintiffs' confidential, proprietary or
trade secret information, including but not limited to,
strategic plans, schematics and mechanical drawings,
customer/contact lists, calculation sheets, and CAD
standards;” (2) require Kapsalis to return all copies
of Babcock's confidential, proprietary and trade secret
information relating to “schematics, diagrams, and
strategic planning documents, contact lists, calculation
sheets, and CAD Standards”that are in Kapsalis'
possession, custody, and control; and (3) identify under
penalty of perjury “all individuals and
organizations” to whom Kapsalis “disclosed,
forwarded, communicated in any manner, directly or
indirectly, Babcock's confidential, proprietary, or trade
secret materials and information…” DN 611-1.
opening brief, Babcock focused on what it referred to as
“the employment contract” between the parties
entitled “Employee Obligations to Babcock Power and
Former Employers, ” a document which does not have an
intrinsic expiration date. While this document was admitted
in the case, it is not the document which was the subject of
the claimed breach. Indeed, the offer letter from Babcock to
Kapsalis refers to them as separate documents to be executed
by Kapsalis. DN 254-2, p. 3, PageID #28480.
jury was instructed to state whether it
Believe[s] from the evidence that it is more likely true than
not true that the defendant, Stephen T. Kapsalis, breached
the Employee Non-Disclosure, Non-Solicitation,
Non-Competition and Assignment Agreement (the
“Agreement”) with Babcock Power, Inc. and Vogt
Power International, Inc.
DN 604, Page 2, PageID #41038. The instructions explained
that to find a breach of contract, it must have been proven
that Kapsalis breached the confidentiality portion of the
Agreement. The confidentiality clause of the Agreement
1. Confidentiality. During the term of my employment
with the Company and for a period of five (5) years
thereafter, I will not divulge to anyone or use for my own
benefit or for the benefit of any third party any
confidential information of the Company, its customers or
suppliers, or any information received in confidence from
third parties by the Company (including without limitation,
all technical designs and specifications, trade secrets,
manufacturing techniques, financial data and marketing
strategies)(collectively, the “Confidential
Information”) learned by me as a result of any task
assigned me or work performed by me for or on behalf of the
Company unless (a) any such Confidential Information becomes
generally available to the public other than as a result of
disclosure by me or (b) I am requested or required (by oral
question, interrogatories, requests for information or
documents, subpoena, civil investigative demand or similar
process) to disclose any such Confidential Information, in
which case I will (i) promptly notify the Company of such
request or requirement, ...