DeGiorgio v. Megabyte Intern., Inc., S96A0212

• Decision Date: 08 April 1996
• Docket Number: No. S96A0212,S96A0212
• Citation: 266 Ga. 539,468 S.E.2d 367
• Parties: DeGIORGIO et al. v. MEGABYTE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 367

468 S.E.2d 367

266 Ga. 539

DeGIORGIO et al. v. MEGABYTE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

No. S96A0212.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 8, 1996.

Cobb County Superior Trial Judge: Hon. Michael Stoddard. No. 10498924.

Daniel L. Henderson, Henderson & Cohen, Marietta, Robert F. Webb, John S. D'Orazio, Webb & D'Orazio, Marietta, for DeGiorgio et al.

Steven G. Hall, Atlanta, Robert B. Hill, McLain & Merritt, P.C., Atlanta, for Megabyte Intern., Inc.

CARLEY, Justice.

Megabyte International, Inc. (Megabyte) is a distributor of computer hardware components. DeGiorgio was a salesman for Megabyte for a few months, but then began working for its newly formed competitor, American Megabyte Distributors, Inc. (AMDI). About a month later, Megabyte brought suit against DeGiorgio and AMDI alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, specifically, lists of Megabyte's top vendors and customers. The trial court granted Megabyte's motion for interlocutory injunction, and DeGiorgio and AMDI appeal.

1. Appellants contend that the trial court had no discretion to grant the injunction because there was no evidence that they misappropriated Megabyte's customer and vendor lists.

Megabyte presented evidence that, after DeGiorgio stopped coming to work, Megabyte searched his desk and could not find customer lists that had been given to DeGiorgio. There was evidence that these lists contained specific information about the customers. The president and the executive vice president of Megabyte testified that, after DeGiorgio left, Megabyte received numerous complaints regarding his activities from top customers, who could not be identified through phone books or commercial lists. This evidence was properly admitted over hearsay objections. See White v. East Lake Land Co., 96 Ga. 415, 416(4), 23 S.E. 393 (1895); Stewart v. Lanier House Co., 75 Ga. 582, 583(4) (1886).

During the search of DeGiorgio's desk, Megabyte found a list of its top vendors in the form of a single-page fax addressed to AMDI's president and dated May 1, 1995. The company fax records show that, on May 1, 1995, a single-page fax was sent to the same phone number shown on the fax found in DeGiorgio's desk. DeGiorgio admitted preparing the fax, but denied ever sending it.

We conclude that the trial court did have before it some evidence that appellants misappropriated customer and vendor lists belonging to Megabyte.

2. Appellants further contend that the lists were not trade secrets which could support a grant of interlocutory injunctive relief under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act.

The lists at issue contained the identities of actual customers and vendors of Megabyte and specific information concerning them. Thus, the information on the lists was not readily ascertainable from any source other than Megabyte's business records. "Such a source would be improper if [Megabyte] had made a reasonable effort to maintain the secrecy of those customer [and vendor] lists." Avnet, Inc. v. Wyle Labs., Inc., 263 Ga. 615, 617(1), 437 S.E.2d 302 (1993). A review of the record reveals evidence from which the trial court could have found that Megabyte had made such a reasonable effort to maintain the secrecy of the customer and vendor lists which the trial court determined to be trade secrets. See Avnet, Inc. v. Wyle Labs., Inc., supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction under the Trade Secrets Act. Avnet, Inc. v. Wyle Labs., Inc., supra.

3. Appellants also contend that the injunction is overly broad.

Under OCGA § 10-1-761(4), only tangible lists of customers and suppliers are the property of the employer and warrant protection as trade secrets. Avnet, Inc. v. Wyle Labs., Inc., supra at 618-619(2), ...