How Ultra 's Customer Database Meets The Not Generally Known Or Readily Ascertainable
1168 WordsNov 23, 20165 Pages
II. Not Generally Known or Readily Ascertainable
C A court is likely to find that Ultra’s customer database meets the not generally known or readily ascertainable element.
R In determining whether information is not generally known or readily ascertainable, courts consider the following two Restatement factors: “the extent to which the information is known outside of the business” and “the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.” Al Minor, 117 Ohio St. 3d at 61 (citing Plain Dealer, 80 Ohio St. 3d at 524-25).
• To determine whether the information is not generally known or readily ascertainable is if a trade secret owner “collected and/or compiled the information from a variety of sources, thus this may support a finding that the information is not generally known or readily ascertainable.” Salemi, 145 Ohio St. 3d at ¶29.
• To determine whether a customer list is not generally known, it “ordinarily includes not only the name of a business or person but also information that is not generally available to the public, such as the name of a contact person, a non-public telephone or cell phone number, an email address, and other data known only because of the relationship with the client.” Salemi, 2014-Ohio-3914 at ¶18 (citing Columbus Bookkeeping, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 5655).
• While the mere fact that each of the clients at issue are listed in a telephone directory, or can be entered by name in a database,