Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Daron Walton d/b/a OEM Supplies sued Computek Computer & Office Supplies Inc., and Michael Williams, Computek’s owner. He alleged, among other claims, that Williams used trade secrets obtained during his employment with OEM to form a competing company. The trial court found in favor of OEM on this claim and awarded it actual and exemplary damages. In addition, the trial court entered a permanent injunction against Computek. Numbered paragraphs one and two of the permanent injunction enjoin Computek from doing business or authorizing anyone else to do business with any OEM client not listed on Attachment A or that was a new account set up while Williams worked for OEM. Attachment A is a list of 184 clients that Williams brought from another business, ABBA, to OEM which Computek may contact. However, the clients Computek may not contact, which is the purpose of paragraphs one and two, are not named or identified. Paragraph three enjoins Computek from advising OEM clients to cancel their business with OEM. It refers to those who were OEM clients as of Oct. 16, 2002 (two days before the request for injunction was filed and the temporary restraining order was signed) and new accounts set up while Williams worked for OEM; however, it does not name or identify those clients. Paragraphs four and five enjoin Computek from disclosing or using the non-ABBA information and files Williams took from OEM or that OEM possessed before Williams left OEM’s employment; those paragraphs do not specifically list the information and files Computek may not use or disclose. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded in part; modified in part; affirmed in part. The court agrees with Computek that these paragraphs enjoin Computek from taking specific actions involving specific OEM clients who are not identified or listed in the permanent injunction, and from using or disclosing information and files that are not specifically identified in the permanent injunction. Because these OEM clients are not specifically named, the court agrees with Computek that it must ask every non-ABBA contact it makes whether it was an OEM client during the relevant times, and that question may be construed as “canvassing” or “soliciting,” and thus a violation of the permanent injunction. The court agrees with Computek that the permanent injunction lacks specificity in this regard. The court cannot agree with OEM that the lack of specificity as to OEM clients is cured by any knowledge Computek may have outside the permanent injunction. Computek argues that the permanent injunction is overbroad, because it prevents lawful activities. Specifically, Computek argues that paragraph seven, which bars Computek from “[r]emoving or destroying any files, or copies of files, including but not limited to Defendants’ computer or computer files,” prevents Computek from removing or destroying any files on its computers, including those that were unrelated to OEM or the litigation. The court concludes that the injunction enjoins activities Computek has a legal right to perform, such as deleting records and files that have nothing to do with OEM, and thus that the injunction is too broad. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 41.006 provides for an “award specific to defendant”: In any action in which there are two or more defendants, an award of exemplary damages must be specific as to a defendant, and each defendant is liable only for the amount of the award made against that defendant. This case accrued in 2002, after 41.006 became applicable to intentional torts by virtue of the 1995 amendment of 41.002(a). By its plain terms, 41.006 provides that there is no joint and several liability for exemplary damages. Because it is unambiguous, the court construes 41.006 as written and concludes that it requires that any award of exemplary damages here must be specific as to Williams and to Computek, and each defendant is liable only for the amount of the award made against that defendant. The trial court erred in awarding joint and several exemplary damages. OPINION:Jim Moseley, J.; Moseley, O’Neill and Richter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.