Opinion
Case No. 6:20-cv-771-Orl-37GJK
2020-06-23
FREEDOM MEDICAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Maheshwar SEWPERSAUD, Defendant.
Edward T. Kang, Pro Hac Vice, Gregory H. Mathews, Pro Hac Vice, Kang Haggerty & Fetbroyt LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Nelson C. Bellido, Roig Lawyers, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff. Ellen M. Leibovitch, Assouline & Berlowe, PA, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant.
Edward T. Kang, Pro Hac Vice, Gregory H. Mathews, Pro Hac Vice, Kang Haggerty & Fetbroyt LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Nelson C. Bellido, Roig Lawyers, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.
Ellen M. Leibovitch, Assouline & Berlowe, PA, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON JR., United States District Judge
Plaintiff Freedom Medical, Inc. ("Freedom Medical ") moved for a temporary restraining order ("TRO ") which was granted. (Docs. 2, 11.) Now the Court considers whether to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction. The Court held a hearing on the matter. (Doc. 69.) On review, the TRO is converted into a preliminary injunction.
I. BACKGROUND
Freedom Medical rents and sells medical equipment to hospitals, nursing homes, and other healthcare providers. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9.) It rents and sells specialty beds including Versatech-branded beds ("Versatech Beds ") and Rotec-branded beds ("Rotec Beds "). (Id. ¶¶ 25, 33.) Rotec International ("Rotec ") manufactures both, which are identical except for branding. (Id. ) It opened an office in Orlando in 2019. (Id. ¶ 25.)
The healthcare industry is highly competitive, "with numerous companies vying for market share." (Id. ¶ 10.) To compete, Freedom Medical creates and maintains highly confidential business information, including marketing strategies, contact lists, pricing and customer lists, and relationships with purchasers and suppliers (collectively, "Confidential Information "). (Id. ¶ 11.) Freedom Medical spends thousands of dollars curating this Confidential Information and takes steps to ensure its continued secrecy, such as limiting access and requiring Freedom Medical employees with access to sign restrictive covenants. (See id. ¶¶ 12, 20.)
Defendant Maheshwar Sewpersaud ("Sewpersaud ") was a branch manager of Freedom Medical's Orlando Office, where he supervised and managed all marketing, rentals, and sales in central Florida. He also assisted in sales outside his territory, including servicing national accounts. (Id. ¶ 16; see also Doc. 61-5, ¶¶ 32–33; Doc. 61-9, p. 5; Doc. 69.) As a condition of employment, he signed a restrictive covenant in May 2013. (Doc. 1, ¶ 15; Doc. 1-1 ("Agreement ").) The Agreement reads:
This area extends from the Hillsborough County boundary lines to the east coast of Florida, north to Duval County, and west to Leon County. (Doc. 1, ¶ 16 ("Sales Territory ").)
[Y]ou will not, during the term of your employment and for a period of one (1) year after the termination of your employment ... (i) engage in any business or perform any service ... in competition with, similar to or the same as the business of [Freedom Medical] [or] (ii) solicit, aid in the solicitation, or service in any way ... any current or prospective client, customer or account, who has been solicited or serviced by [Freedom Medical] within one (1) year prior to the termination of your employment.
[You] will not, during the term of your employment ... for your own account or for the benefit of any person, solicit, divert or induce any of Freedom Medical Inc.’s customers, employees or consultants to leave the engagement of Freedom Medical, Inc.
(Doc. 1, ¶¶ 17–19; Doc. 1-1.) As a branch manager, Sewpersaud had access to Confidential Information, including information on the specialty beds offered by Freedom Medical and the company's strategy for selling them. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 23, 28.) He helped supply Rotec Beds to Veterans Administration ("VA ") facilities, including the Orlando VA Hospital ("Orlando VA "). (Id. ¶¶ 30–31.) At first, Freedom Medical supplied beds to the Orlando VA through Interior Fusion, LLC ("Interior Fusion "), a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business. (Id. ¶ 30.) Then in March 2019, Freedom Medical entered into a five-year Federal Supply Services Contract with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which authorized Freedom Medical to rent and sell pre-approved medical equipment directly to VA facilities. (Id. ¶ 33.)
On July 26, 2019, the Orlando VA contacted Freedom Medical and told Sewpersaud it wanted to purchase thirty Rotec Beds, which it had been renting. (Doc. 1, ¶ 34; Doc. 61-4, ¶ 17.) Sewpersaud prepared and delivered a quote and, after requests from the Orlando VA and with his supervisors’ approval, provided a revised quote on August 20, 2019. (Doc. 61-4, ¶¶ 17–18; see also Doc. 56-2, p. 17.) On September 10, Sewpersaud told Freedom Medical: "this purchase of $600,000 [from the Orlando VA] was approved." (Doc. 61-4, ¶ 19, p. 17.) It wasn't. The next day the Orlando VA emailed Sewpersaud with "lots of questions" about Freedom Medical's quote. (Doc. 61-4, pp. 66–67.) Sewpersaud responded immediately, answering some questions and promising to "contact the manufacturer" and send an amended quote as to others. (Id. at pp. 66–67; see also Doc. 56-2, p. 21–22.) But there is no evidence he followed up. (See Doc. 56-2.)
At the hearing, Sewpersaud testified he is sure he responded because he always responded to clients. (Doc. 69.) But Sewpersaud's testimony regarding the Orlando VA contract was not credible. See infra n.8.
In the preceding days, both the Orlando VA and Sewpersaud were also emailing Interior Fusion—who was contacting Rotec. (See Doc. 61-3, ¶ 5; Doc. 56-3; Doc. 58-1, ¶¶ 12, 13, 16, 17.) On September 8 and 9, Sewpersaud sent Interior Fusion Freedom Medical's pricing and brochure lists on the Versatech 1100 bed and its accessories (the same products the Orlando VA was seeking to purchase). (Doc. 61-3, ¶ 5, pp. 10–12.) On September 10, Rotec authorized Interior Fusion as a distributor of its products. (Id. ¶ 5, p. 14.) And on September 11—the same day the Orlando VA was emailing Sewpersaud questions about Freedom Medical's quote—the Orlando VA emailed Interior Fusion requesting a quote from them, too. (Doc. 61-13, p. 2.) Interior Fusion responded the next day with a fully prepared quote. (Doc. 61-14, p. 2.) The contract for the Orlando VA was awarded to Interior Fusion, not Freedom Medical, on September 20, 2019. (Doc. 1-11, p. 2.)
The quote was for beds manufactured by Rotec; Interior Fusion was able to offer Rotec beds because of the authorization letter it received on September 10, 2019—the day before the Orlando VA asked Interior Fusion for a quote. (See Doc. 58-1, ¶¶ 12, 13, 15–16; Doc. 61-4, ¶ 30; Doc. 69.)
Curiously, Sewpersaud opened an Interior Fusion company email account the day after the Orlando VA bid was awarded. (Doc. 61-3, ¶ 5, p. 36.) It is not clear why he opened this account.
Sewpersaud's communications with Interior Fusion were not limited to emails—he was also in a group text ("group chat ") with Interior Fusion's owner Richard Fendley and another Freedom Medical sales manager. (Doc. 61-3, ¶ 10.) The three discussed starting a joint venture; Sewpersaud boasted, "Then we take all Freedom Business away." (Id. ¶ 11.) Sewpersaud was also in direct contact with Rotec, meeting with Rotec's owner on September 14, 2019 to discuss possible employment. (See Doc. 61-10, pp. 2–3.) Sewpersaud later texted the group chat that Rotec had asked him to work with Rotec's engineer on a new bed adding, "They are going to have to pay me now for ideas." (Doc. 61-3, ¶ 11.)
On October 8, Sewpersaud again told Freedom Medical the Orlando VA purchase was approved and that it should "expect to see the [Purchase Order] for this purchase within the month or November." (Doc. 61-4, ¶ 23, p. 20.) He submitted a letter of resignation on October 25, 2019, with a last day of November 8, 2019. (Doc. 1, ¶ 36.) At the time, he had Confidential Information, including detailed customer lists, pricing and marketing strategies, and active prospects in the region. (Id. ) Sewpersaud told Freedom Medical he was leaving for an unrelated job at 3M, selling negative pressure wound therapy products. This was not true. Actually, he was going to work for Rotec's Orlando office. (Doc. 56-1, ¶ 28; Doc. 61-4, ¶ 26.)
Since going to work for Rotec, Sewpersaud prepared a spreadsheet suggesting new design features for Rotec beds—features listed as "must have features" and "key" to marketing strategy on Freedom Medical's internal training materials about their own beds. (Doc. 61-2, ¶ 17.) And in December 2019, Sewpersaud accessed a "Top 40 Customer Business Review Agenda," a mattress utilization report, and a Rotec 1100 utilization report. (Doc. 61-3, ¶ 12.) Sewpersaud's Rotec expense reports show he has solicited at least six current customers of Freedom Medical and two active prospects. (Doc. 61-3, ¶ 9; Doc. 61-4, ¶ 32.) And Sewpersaud knew they were former clients, writing "Visited customers to introduce Rotec[.] These are customers I worked with in the past" on an expense report. (Doc. 61-4, p. 78.) He also reached out to some of Freedom Medical's national accounts. (See id. ¶¶ 33–38.)
Freedom Medical sued Sewpersaud for: (1) violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA "); (2) trade secret misappropriation under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("FUTSA "); (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) fraud; and (6) tortious interference. (Doc. 1) Freedom Medical also moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction. (Docs. 2, 3.) The Court granted the TRO. (Doc. 11.) After briefing and a hearing on converting the TRO into a preliminary injunction, the matter is ripe. (Docs. 55–61, 69.) II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A district court may issue a preliminary injunction when the movant shows: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. See Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A. , 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003). Preliminary injunctions are "drastic" and "extraordinary" remedies, not to be issued unless the movant has "clearly established" the burden of persuasion on each element. Id. at 1210 (quotation marks and citation omitted). They are the exception, not the rule. Id.
III. ANALYSIS
Freedom Medical has shown a substantial likelihood of success on its trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duties claims; the Court makes no findings as to Freedom Medical's other claims. (See Doc. 1); see also Primo Broodstock, Inc. v. Am. Mariculture, Inc. , No. 2:17-cv-9-FtM-29CM, 2017 WL 1502714, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2017) (explaining a plaintiff need only establish a substantial likelihood of success on one claim).
1. DTSA and FUTSA
Freedom Medical established a substantial likelihood of success on its trade secret misappropriation claims under the DTSA and FUTSA. A trade secret is information that "derives independent economic value ... from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value" from the information. 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3). Freedom Medical has spent thousands of dollars creating and maintaining its Confidential Information, like customer lists (with customers’ preferences and patient demographics), and other business information and marketing strategies, which help it maintain its competitive position in the healthcare industry. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 10–12); see also RxStrategies, Inc. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. , 390 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1352 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (explaining customer lists can be trade secrets if they contain information not publicly available); G.W. Henssler & Assocs., Ltd. v. Marietta Wealth Mgmt., LLC , No. 1:17-cv-2188-TCB, 2017 WL 6996372, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2017) (explaining lists with sensitive client information and preferences are "highly valuable").
DTSA and FUTSA can be analyzed together. M.C. Dean, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, Fla. , 199 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1353–54 (S.D. Fla. 2016).
Freedom Medical also tried to ensure the secrecy of its Confidential Information. Freedom Medical assigns passwords to those limited employees given access and requires them to sign an agreement prohibiting the unauthorized use or disclosure of the information and from working for competitors for one-year following the end of employment. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 12, 20.) So Freedom Medical has shown its customer lists and proprietary business information are trade secrets. See G.W. Henssler & Assocs., Ltd. , 2017 WL 6996372, at *4.
Second, Freedom Medical has shown Sewpersaud misappropriated the Confidential Information. Misappropriation is the
use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who ... (ii) at the time of the disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade secrete was
... (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use of the trade secret.
18 U.S.C. § 1839(5)(B). Sewpersaud signed the Agreement prohibiting him from disclosing Freedom Medical's Confidential Information. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 12, 15.) He also received a letter after his resignation reminding him of his duty to maintain Freedom Medical's confidentiality. (Id. ¶ 39.) Despite this, there is evidence since leaving Sewpersaud has: knowingly solicited eight of Freedom Medical's former clients or active prospects (Doc. 61-3, ¶ 9; Doc. 61-4, ¶ 32); suggested modifications to Rotec's beds based on Freedom Medical's market research and experience (Doc. 61-2, ¶ 17); and accessed Freedom Medical's top customers and product utilization reports (Doc. 61-3, ¶ 12). So Freedom Medical has shown Sewpersaud likely misappropriated its trade secrets. See All Leisure Holidays Ltd. v. Novello , No. 12-62328-CIV, 2012 WL 5932364, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2012).
2. Breach of the Agreement
Freedom Medical claims Sewpersaud has breached the Agreement, which includes a restrictive covenant not to compete and a confidentiality agreement. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 60–64.) Under the Agreement, Sewpersaud is prohibited for one year after the termination of employment with Freedom Medical, from "engag[ing] in any business or perform[ing] any service ... in competition with, similar to, or the same as the business of [Freedom Medical]." (Doc. 1-1, p. 2.) By leaving Freedom Medical to work for Rotec, Freedom Medical argues, Sewpersaud has breached this agreement. (Doc. 1, ¶ 63.)
Sewpersaud first argues he has not breached the restrictive covenant because Rotec only sells beds while Freedom Medical's business is "99%" rentals. (Doc. 60, p. 13.) The Court is not persuaded. First, Sewpersaud admits his only basis for the 99% figure is his general experience working at Freedom Medical and he does not know of Freedom Medical's revenues. (See Doc. 69.) Second, the evidence shows these two companies are in direct competition. Freedom Medical's bid to sell Versatech beds lost out to Interior Fusion's bid to sell Rotec beds—a bid made possible by Rotec's authorization (arguably orchestrated by Sewpersaud). (See Doc. 61-4, ¶¶ 17, 29–30.) And Sewpersaud himself deliberately solicited former Freedom Medical rental customers to sell them Rotec beds. (Doc. 56-1, ¶ 37; Doc. 61-3, ¶ 9; Doc. 61-4, ¶ 32.) Finally, Sewpersaud admits he lied to Freedom Medical about where he was going next, telling them he was going to an unrelated job at 3M instead of Rotec. (Doc. 56-1, ¶ 29.) From this the Court can infer Sewpersaud was deliberately preventing Freedom Medical from learning of his new job at a forbidden competitor. So Rotec and Freedom Medical are competitors under the Agreement.
Next, Sewpersaud argues the scope of his non-compete agreement is unreasonable. (Doc. 60, pp. 13–16.) Under Florida law, restrictive covenants not to compete are enforceable "so long as such contracts are reasonable in time, area, and line of business" and protect a legitimate business interest. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1) ; see also Peterbrooke Franchising of Am., LLC v. Miami Chocolates, LLC , No. 16-20417-Civ-COOKE/TORRES, 2016 WL 8787063, at *8 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2016). If a contract's term is unreasonable, "a court shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interest or interests." Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(c). Legitimate business interests include trade secrets, valuable confidential business information, substantial relationships with prospective or existing customers, and customer goodwill. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b) ; Autonation, Inc. v. O'Brien , 347 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
Freedom Medical argues, and the Court agrees, the Agreement was necessary to protect Freedom Medical's Confidential Information and so protects a legitimate business interest. (Doc. 61, pp. 12–15); see also Autonation, Inc. , 346 F. Supp. 2d at 1304. Next is scope: are there reasonable restrictions on time, area, and line of business? The Agreement is limited to one year post-termination, which many courts have found reasonable. See Autonation, Inc. , 347 F. Supp. 2d at 1307 (collecting cases). And the Agreement reasonably seeks to prohibit Sewpersaud from sharing confidential information and trade secrets with a direct competitor. See id. ; cf. Doc. 1-1. So it comes down to geographic area. The Agreement has no restriction on area and Freedom Medical argues there should be none given Sewpersaud's work on national accounts. (See Docs. 3, 4, 61, 61-1, 69.) Sewpersaud argues that if the Court finds he likely breached the Agreement, he should be enjoined only from working in his former sales area of Orlando. (See Doc. 60, p. 15; Doc. 69.) Here, Sewpersaud has the better argument.
Freedom Medical has presented no evidence that a global injunction, preventing Sewpersaud from working for a "similar" medical supply company anywhere in the world, is reasonable or appropriate. See GPS Indus., LLC v. Lewis , 691 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1336 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (global restrictive covenant overbroad even for global company). Rather, the evidence shows Sewpersaud's work was primarily limited to his Sales Territory in the Orlando area, with occasional work on some of Freedom Medical's national accounts. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 15, 16; Doc. 56-1, ¶ 8.) Because of this evidence, the Court will modify the Agreement to only enjoin Sewpersaud from working for a competitor, including Rotec, in his former Sales Territory. (See Doc. 60-1); see also Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(c) ; Office Depot, Inc. v. Babb , No. 20-cv-80407-SINGHAL, 2020 WL 1306984, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2020) (reasonable to enjoin former employee "from working for a competitor in the same geographic territory for which she worked on behalf of [employer]"); see also Victaulic Co. v. Tieman , 499 F.3d 227, 237 (3d Cir. 2007), as amended (Nov. 20, 2007) (explaining "broad geographic restrictions [are] reasonable so long as they are roughly in consonant with the scope of the employee's duties").
The Court will exercise its discretion under Florida law to enforce the one-year provision from the date the TRO was entered on May 6, 2020 (Doc. 11). See Univ. Med. Clinics, Inc. v. Quality Health Plans, Inc., 51 So. 3d 1191, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
The Agreement also prohibited Sewpersaud from disclosing Confidential Information and from soliciting Freedom Medical customers and prospects for one year after leaving Freedom Medical. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 2–3.) Sewpersaud does not object to these terms and the Court finds them reasonable. (See Doc. 60, p. 7, n. 2–3.) So Freedom Medical has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the breach of contract claim, as modified.
3. Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Freedom Medical has also shown a substantial likelihood of success on its breach of fiduciary duties claim. To show Sewpersaud breached his fiduciary duty towards Freedom Medical, it must show: (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach; and (3) damages. Treco Int'l S.A. v. Kromka , 706 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2010). "[A]n employee may not engage in disloyal acts in anticipation of his future competition, such as using confidential information acquired during the course of his employment or soliciting customers ... prior to the end of his employment." Furmanite America, Inc. v. T.D. Williamson, Inc. , 506 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1149 (M.D. Fla. 2007).
As an employee, Sewpersaud had contractual and common law duties to act in Freedom Medical's best interest. (Doc. 1, ¶ 66; Doc. 1-1); see also Kromka , 706 F. Supp. 2d at 1288. And the evidence shows that while employed by Freedom Medical, Sewpersaud was likely covertly working with Interior Fusion and Rotec to undermine Freedom Medical's Orlando VA bid—efforts that ultimately proved successful when the Orlando VA awarded the $600,000 contract to Interior Fusion. Freedom Medical also presented evidence Sewpersaud referred VA solicitation opportunities to Interior Fusion instead of Freedom Medical. (Doc. 61-7, ¶¶ 17–25.) And that Sewpersaud encouraged Dr. Susan Gallagher to delay completing a project for Freedom Medical—texting his group chat that, after he talked with her, "[s]he will drag [the project]." (Doc. 61-3, ¶ 11, p. 44.) Working with Freedom Medical's direct competitors to obtain bids and encouraging others to delay completing projects for his employer are disloyal acts that breach fiduciary duty. See Furmanite America, Inc. , 506 F. Supp. 2d at 1149. So Freedom Medical has established a substantial likelihood of success on this claim.
At the hearing, Sewpersaud testified and denied working with Rotec or Interior Fusion on the Orlando VA bid. (See Doc. 69.) But this testimony is not credible. Sewpersaud's statements are belied by his failure to respond to the Orlando VA's questions on September 11 and his close working relationship—via both email and text—with Interior Fusion's owner. (See Doc. 56-2, p. 21–22; Doc. 61-3, ¶¶ 5, 10–11, pp. 10–12.) And Sewpersaud has demonstrated a willingness to lie or hide unfavorable facts—telling Freedom Medical falsely, multiple times, and in writing, the Orlando VA purchase was approved when it wasn't, and telling Freedom Medical he was going to work for 3M instead of Rotec. (Doc. 56-1, ¶¶ 18, 29; Doc. 61-4, ¶¶ 19, 23.) In light of this, the Court will not credit Sewpersaud's testimony regarding the Orlando VA.
B. Irreparable Injury
Freedom Medical established irreparable injury will result before a trial on the merits. (See Doc. 3, pp. 28–29.) In Florida, irreparable injury is presumed when there has been trade secret misappropriation or a breach of a covenant not to compete. See Backjoy Orthotics, LLC v. Forvic Int'l Inc. , No. 6:14-cv-249-Orl-41TBS, 2015 WL 12915119, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2015) ; Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(j). To the extent this presumption has been questioned, Freedom Medical has still shown irreparable harm. See, e.g. , Everest Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Rockhill Ins. Co. , No 8:16-cv-2803-T-35JSS, 2016 WL 8914546, at *5–6 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2016).
Sewpersaud was privy to Freedom Medical's most sensitive information about its customers, business strategies, territory plans, financial performance, pricing, costs, and other business metrics—and he now works for a direct competitor, has tried to conceal his new role, and has solicited Freedom Medical's former clients. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 23, 28, 37, 50.) Sewpersaud's behavior—including soliciting eight Freedom Medical clients and prospects and suggesting changes to Rotec beds that Freedom Medical believed gave it a market advantage—all support a finding of irreparable injury. (Doc. 61-2, ¶ 27; Doc. 61-3, ¶ 9; Doc. 61-4, ¶ 32.) Freedom Medical risks losing customers, goodwill, and market competitiveness to its direct competitor, Rotec, in the highly competitive healthcare field. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 10, 13, 25); see also Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Hagerty , 808 F. Supp. 1555, 1559 (S.D. Fla. 1992), aff'd sub nom. 2 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1993). Freedom Medical faces irreparable harm absent an injunction.
C. Balancing of Harms
Freedom Medical has established its threatened injury outweighs any harm to Sewpersaud. Freedom Medical faces the loss of its Confidential Information, customers, and market share to its competitor. See supra Section III.B. Freedom Medical expended great time and resources in developing and protecting its Confidential Information to prevent just this injury. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 11–12.) Sewpersaud can no longer work in Orlando, but at the hearing he represented he could work for Rotec in a different area. (See Doc. 69.) And the harm to him is minimal because the Court is simply requiring Sewpersaud to do that which he willingly promised. (See Doc. 1-1.) Sewpersaud accepted employment at Freedom Medical conditioned on a one-year covenant not to compete—and he left that employment to work for a forbidden competitor. (See id. ; see also Doc. 56-1, ¶¶ 21–23, 28.) Here, the balance of harms favors an injunction. See Autonation, Inc. , 347 F. Supp. 2d at 1308 (loss of employment doesn't outweigh harm to former employer when employee signed a covenant not to compete); Office Depot, Inc. , 2020 WL 1306984 at *4 (same).
D. Public Interest
Finally, the public interest is served by protecting trade secrets and enforcing confidentiality agreements. See All Leisure , 2012 WL 5932364, at *6. As it is by enforcing reasonable, freely-entered covenants not to compete, which are necessary to encourage business expansion and growth. Office Depot, Inc. , 2020 WL 1306984 at *4 ; see also Autonation, Inc. , 347 F. Supp. 2d at 1308 ; Fla. Stat. § 542.335. So the public interest is served by enjoining Sewpersaud.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on May 6, 2020 (Doc. 11) is converted into a preliminary injunction:
a. Defendant Maheshwar Sewpersaud is ENJOINED from directly or indirectly:
i. Using or accessing any trade secrets, proprietary information, or confidential information belonging to Freedom Medical in any capacity except as it relates to his defense of this action; and
ii. Soliciting, doing business with, selling to, renting to, or servicing any current or prospective client, customer, or account, who has been solicited or serviced by Freedom Medical or any affiliate of Freedom Medical for a period of one year (1 year) commencing May 6, 2020.
iii. The parties are directed to meet and confer by Monday, July 6, 2020 and provide the Court with a list of Freedom Medical customers and prospects subject to the constraints of paragraph (ii) above to assist the Court in narrowing the reach of any ongoing injunctive relief.
2. Defendant Maheshwar Sewpersaud is DIRECTED to return all confidential Freedom Medical information in his possession to Freedom Medical. Mr. Sewpersaud will make available to Freedom Medical, at a convenient location, all of the electronic devices he possesses that potentially have Freedom Medical Confidential Information. Freedom
Medical will be given the opportunity to inspect those devices and, after disclosure to Mr. Sewpersaud, remove any Confidential Information it finds. The Court expects the parties to cooperate.
3. Defendant Maheshwar Sewpersaud is ENJOINED from working for Rotec in any capacity in his former Freedom Medical Sales Territory, which extends from the Hillsborough County boundary lines to the east coast of Florida and as far north as Duval County and west to Leon County until May 6, 2021.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on June 23, 2020.