From a birds-eye view, Cellular Accessories For Less, Inc.
v. Trinitas, LLC appears to be a typical dispute between an
employer and its former employee. However, a closer look reveals an
issue new to the world of trade secrets—specifically, do
LinkedIn contacts qualify as trade secrets? For now, they may: a
federal judge in the Central District of California denied defendants' motion for summary
judgment last month, finding there were triable issues of
material fact surrounding the question whether LinkedIn contacts
were protectable trade secrets.
The case arose when defendant David Oakes, a
sales account manager for plaintiff Cellular Accessories for Less
("Cellular"), a seller of mobile phone accessories to
businesses, decided to strike out on his own after more than six
years with his employer. During his tenure at Cellular, Oakes had
signed an employment agreement requiring that proprietary
information, including Cellular's "customer base,"
remains property of
