Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 1 of 30 PageID: 1
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`TRENTON VICINAGE
`
`MAIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SASANK C. KUNADHARAJU,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
`APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
`AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“MAIA” or the “Company”) through its
`
`undersigned counsel, Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, PC and Law Office of David R. Lurie PLLC,
`
`by way of Verified Complaint against defendant Sasank C. Kunadharaju (“Kunadharaju”), alleges
`
`and says:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a proceeding seeking, among other things, to address the Defendant’s
`
`misappropriation – and likely theft – of MAIA’s most competitively valuable confidential
`
`information,
`
`2.
`
`MAIA is a New Jersey pharmaceutical company that has spent millions of dollars,
`
`and countless hours of research and development, to develop trade-secrets, including respecting
`
`manufacturing know how, that are among the Company’s most valuable assets.
`
`3.
`
`Until January 14, 2022, Defendant was MAIA’s Senior Director, Product
`
`Development.
`
`6705441
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 30 PageID: 2
`
`4.
`
`In that capacity, Defendant had responsibilities related to three of the Company’s
`
`products. By virtue of his seniority, however, Defendant had the ability to access files containing
`
`virtually all of the Company’s trade secrets and other confidential information, including access
`
`to a password protected secure cloud server, on which MAIA maintains its most sensitive
`
`documents containing its trade secrets and other competitively sensitive and confidential
`
`information.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant entered into two comprehensive confidentiality and non-disclosure
`
`agreements with the Company whereby he agreed, among other things, to access – and use –
`
`MAIA’s confidential information solely for work-related purposes, and to maintain their
`
`confidentiality.
`
`6.
`
`On January 14, 2022, Defendant informed the Company of his intention to resign,
`
`and later agreed to a February 4, 2022 departure date. Defendant later admitted to the Company
`
`that he had resolved to resign at the beginning of December 2021, but chose to wait to provide his
`
`notice about 45 days later.
`
`7.
`
`On January 20, 2022, the Company presented Defendant with a normal course
`
`termination agreement, which – if executed – would have entitled him to receive a severance
`
`payment. The draft agreement, among other things, included an affirmation of Defendant’s
`
`existing contractual non-disclosure, confidentiality, as well as non-competition, obligations to the
`
`Company.
`
`8.
`
`The document also listed the several Company projects on which Defendant had
`
`worked accurately stating that they fell within Defendant’s existing confidentiality and restrictive
`
`covenant and non-competition obligations.
`
`6705441
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 3 of 30 PageID: 3
`
`9.
`
`Defendant, however refused to execute the draft termination agreement, and stated
`
`that he preferred to be bound only by his existing confidentiality and non-competition agreements
`
`with the Company which he (falsely) described as “vague.”
`
`10.
`
`Recognizing
`
`that Defendant’s statements were suspicious,
`
`the Company
`
`immediately conducted a review of Defendant’s history of accessing the Company’s secure server.
`
`The review disclosed that, during the months preceding his notice of resignation, Defendant had
`
`systematically downloaded 30,000 Company documents from the secure server.
`
`11.
`
`The documents at issue contain much of the Company’s most competitively
`
`sensitive materials, including pharmaceutical formulae, laboratory procedures, manufacturing
`
`processes, business agreements and price information.
`
`12. Many of the documents Defendant downloaded were entirely unrelated to the three
`
`MAIA products he worked on; accordingly, he accessed and downloaded such materials in express
`
`violation of his NDAs with the Company.
`
`13.
`
`Additionally, Defendant downloaded approximately 10,000 of the documents at
`
`issue between during and after December 2021, after (on his own account) Defendant had decided
`
`to leave the Company and was, apparently, preparing for his departure.
`
`14.
`
`On January 21, 2022, Defendant informed the Company that he had decided to
`
`leave the Company effective retroactively on January 14, 2022, not February 4, 2022, as previously
`
`agreed. On that date, he also sent an electronic message reiterating his rejection of the draft
`
`termination agreement.
`
`15.
`
`Also on January 21, 2021, MAIA’s consultant retrieved Defendant’s Company
`
`laptop from Defendant at his residence, and later delivered it to a forensic computer specialist for
`
`examination, who reviewed the laptop in conjunction with a log that recording every time that the
`
`6705441
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 4 of 30 PageID: 4
`
`Defendant accessed, and downloaded data from, MAIA’s secure sever. The forensic specialist’s
`
`examination established among other things:
`
`16.
`
`First, that Defendant had deleted virtually all of the MAIA related work product
`
`that previously resided on the hard drive of the device, including all of the documents containing
`
`MAIA’s confidential information that he had downloaded from the secure server.
`
`17.
`
`Second, that, during or around the time that Defendant been downloading huge
`
`volumes of documents containing MAIA’s trade secrets and other confidential information from
`
`the Company’s secure server, Defendant attached a host of devices to the computer’s USB ports,
`
`including a number of mass storage devices and other devices that may be used to download or
`
`copy files. It is not only possible, but likely that some or all of the documents that Defendant
`
`downloaded from MAIA’s secure server were downloaded directly to – or were transferred to –
`
`one or more of these devices; but a forensic review of each of these storage devices will be required
`
`to determine what data Defendant transferred to them.
`
`18.
`
`Third, also during and around time periods in which he was downloading Company
`
`confidential information from the MAIA secure server, Defendant used his Company computer to
`
`access a personal “Google Drive” account – an Internet based service that may be utilized to store
`
`large volumes of data. Once again, it is not only possible, but likely that some or all of the
`
`documents that Defendant downloaded from MAIA’s secure server were downloaded directly to
`
`– or were transferred to – Defendant’s Google Drive account. As in the case of the mass storage
`
`devices, it is necessary for MAIA’s forensic investigator to obtain access to the Google Drive
`
`account to determine what MAIA data Defendant transferred to that account.
`
`19.
`
`Finally, while Defendant deleted virtually all of his work-related files from his
`
`Company laptop, he did not delete the “browser history” records, reflecting the websites the
`
`6705441
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 5 of 30 PageID: 5
`
`Defendant used the laptop to visit, including the website used to access MAIA’s secure server.
`
`Those and certain other records establish that Defendant used another, non-Company, computer
`
`to download and purloin MAIA’s documents containing MAIA’s trade secrets.
`
`20.
`
`The log that recorded all of Defendant’s visits to MAIA’s secure server indicates
`
`that on December 10 and 17, 2021, Defendant used his password to access the secure server and
`
`to download approximately 6,500 containing some of MAIA’s most competitively sensitive and
`
`valuable trade secrets.
`
`21.
`
`The laptop’s browser history, however, shows that the Defendant did not visit the
`
`secure server from that Company device on those two days. Accordingly, the forensic examiner
`
`concluded that Defendant employed another computer, in addition to his MAIA-issued Company
`
`computer, to access the secure server, download and purloin MAIA’s trade secrets and other
`
`confidential information.
`
`22.
`
`On January 24, 2022, MAIA sent Defendant a cease a desist letter reciting the
`
`volume and nature of the MAIA materials he had misappropriated from MAIA’s secure server,
`
`and demanding that Defendant, among other things, list all Company confidential information he
`
`downloaded, state where all copies of such information was located, and identify every person or
`
`entity to which he had transferred such materials
`
`23.
`
`On January 25, 2022, Defendant sent a responsive letter effectively conceding that
`
`he had the downloaded the materials, but offering no account of what he had done with them.
`
`24.
`
`Accordingly, on January 26, 2022, the Company sent Defendant a second letter
`
`stating that Defendant’s initial response was “unsatisfactory,” and demanding a certification, under
`
`penalty of perjury, identifying, among other things. any “device, location, person or entity” (other
`
`than the Company laptop) to which MAIA documents were copied or transferred, via email, server,
`
`6705441
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 6 of 30 PageID: 6
`
`backup service or external storage device, and providing the Company with access to any such
`
`devices or accounts, including passwords.
`
`25.
`
`On January 27, 2022, Defendant forwarded an executed copy of the certification,
`
`expressly asserting that he had solely used his MAIA laptop to download MAIA’s confidential
`
`information and specifically and unequivocally representing that he had not transferred any such
`
`materials to an external device or account.
`
`26.
`
`As explained above, the forensic examination of the Company laptop established
`
`that Defendant’s representations were almost certainly false, and that Defendant did transfer
`
`MAIA’s confidential information to one or more external devices or accounts, and then wiped
`
`much of the data on the Company laptop in an effort to cover his tracks.
`
`27.
`
`Only two logical conclusions can be drawn from Defendant’s misappropriation of
`
`MAIA’s trade secrets, the likely transfer of those materials to one or more external devices or
`
`accounts, and his wiping of the computer and mendacious responses to MAIA’s inquiries: 1)
`
`Defendant plans to engage in improper competition with the Company by using MAIA’s trade
`
`secrets without incurring the substantial investment the Company has made developing them; or
`
`2) Defendant conspired with a competitor to improperly misappropriate and share the Company’s
`
`trade secrets.
`
`28.
`
`Accordingly, in order to prevent further dissemination or other misuse of its trade
`
`secrets and other confidential information, and the resulting irreparable harm, MAIA petitions this
`
`Court for emergent relief.
`
`6705441
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 7 of 30 PageID: 7
`
`THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
`
`place of business located at 707 State Rd. Ste. 104, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Sasank C. Kunadharaju is a natural person who resides at 32 Stony Rd,
`
`Edison, New Jersey 08817.
`
`31.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331
`
`and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §1836(b)(1) & (c).
`
`32.
`
`The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§1367 because they arise out of the same facts such that they form part of the same case and
`
`controversy.
`
`33.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the resulting injuries were
`
`caused by Defendant in this District and MAIA conducts business within this District.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
`
`34.
`
`The Company. MAIA was established in 2013, as a specialty pharmaceutical
`
`company
`
`that
`
`identifies, develops, manufactures and markets generic and
`
`innovative
`
`pharmaceutical products, and seeks to commercialize its products globally.
`
`35.
`
`The Company develops its products through extensive research and development
`
`efforts, and that research, and the resulting know how, which the Company takes extensive efforts
`
`to maintain as confidential, are among the Company’s most valuable assets.
`
`36. MAIA’s pipeline of complex pharmaceutical products is a result of its research and
`
`development expertise and know-how, which was developed at great expense. MAIA is not a
`
`traditional generics company. It develops products that are improvements over existing patent
`
`medications by addressing challenges in formulation and manufacturing processes. The generics
`
`6705441
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 8 of 30 PageID: 8
`
`marketplace is extremely competitive, and the dissemination of MAIA’s trade secrets, and
`
`confidential and proprietary information to competitors would threaten the Company’s survival.
`
`37.
`
`The Company has 15 products in various stages of research, development and
`
`commercialization. These products cover a broad range of clinical applications, including
`
`diagnostic testing; inflammatory, allergic and immunologically mediated conditions; oncology;
`
`skeletal muscle spasms; anti-biotics (and their precursor compounds); hypothyroidism; and
`
`hyperammonemia.1
`
`38. MAIA’s trade secrets. All of the Company’s confidential information and trade
`
`secrets are not known outside the Company; were created by the Company over many years of
`
`extensive research involving large investments of capital and labor; were developed by the
`
`Company for internal use only and with the expectation of deriving economic benefit; and are
`
`inherently and intrinsically valuable.
`
`39.
`
`All of the Company’s confidential information and trade secrets are related to
`
`multiple products used in, or intended for use in, interstate and international commerce.
`
`40.
`
`All of the Company’s confidential information and trade secrets allow the Company
`
`to develop its products more efficiently and with quality and precision greater than its competitors
`
`— exactly what sets the Company apart from them.
`
`41.
`
`The misuse or exploitation of this information by competitors would allow them an
`
`unfair advantage over the Company, and would allow such competitors to divert and convert the
`
`Company’s actual and prospective revenues, causing irreparable injury to the Company.
`
`1 MAIA has obtained approval from the FDA for an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) under section 505(j)
`of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”) for Sodium Phenylacetate and Sodium Benzoate
`Injection, 10%/10%, 50 mL single-dose vial, an adjunctive therapy in pediatric and adult patients for the treatment of
`acute hyperammonemia and associated encephalopathy in patients with deficiencies in enzymes of the urea cycle.
`
`6705441
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 9 of 30 PageID: 9
`
`42.
`
`The Company takes reasonable measures, under the circumstances, to maintain the
`
`confidentiality of its trade secrets, and proprietary and confidential information, including securing
`
`them on a password protected server. The Company uses SecureDocs, a virtual data room to store,
`
`share and manage sensitive and confidential Company trade secrets and information. An
`
`authorized user may only access the system and secure data room through a password and a two-
`
`factor authentication.
`
`43.
`
`Kunadharaju. On or about September 9, 2020, MAIA offered Kunadharaju an offer
`
`of employment as its Senior Director, Product Development. In this role, he was to be responsible
`
`for overseeing the research, development, and manufacture of innovative new products that are
`
`targeted towards helping people and bringing them to market outside the United States. Further,
`
`he would be responsible for working with MAIA’s third-party vendors, customers and suppliers
`
`towards that goal.
`
`44.
`
`On or around September 10, 2020, in connection with first accepting an offer of
`
`employment with MAIA, Kunadharaju entered into a “Confidentiality Agreement” (the “First
`
`Confidentiality Agreement”) that, among other things, required him to: (i) “hold the Confidential
`
`Information received from MAIA in strict confidence and . . . exercise a reasonable degree of care
`
`to prevent disclosure to others;” (ii) not to “reproduce the Confidential Information or use this
`
`information commercially or for any purpose other than the performance of [your] duties for
`
`MAIA;” (iii) “not disclose or divulge either directly or indirectly the Confidential Information to
`
`others unless first authorized to do so in writing by MAIA management;” and (iv) “upon
`
`termination [of your employment] relationship with MAIA, deliver to MAIA any drawings, notes,
`
`documents, equipment, and materials received from MAIA or originating from [your] employment
`
`with MAIA.” See Declaration of Bikram Malik (“Malik Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exh. A.
`
`6705441
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 10 of 30 PageID: 10
`
`45.
`
`On or about September 30, 2021, as a condition of his continued employment, and
`
`in consideration for which he received 6,500 MAIA common stock options (subject to a vesting
`
`schedule and other conditions), Defendant entered into a “Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and
`
`Non-Competition Agreement” (the “Second Confidentiality Agreement”). Under the Second
`
`Confidentiality Agreement, Defendant agreed to “protect” and “safeguard” the Company’s
`
`Confidential Information, including by using such materials solely for purposes of conducting
`
`Company business, strictly maintaining the confidentiality of such materials, and not disclosing
`
`MAIA’s Confidential Information, or transferring, any such materials to any third party.
`
`Paragraph 8 of the Second Confidentiality Agreement provides:
`
`You [Kunadharaju] acknowledge that all Confidential Information and any
`records, files, memoranda, computer programs, reports, claims reports or
`records, customer lists, contracts, marketing plans, programs or forecasts and
`other written or printed documents or materials or other data stored on
`computer disks or other electronic data storage methods (“Documents”)
`received, created or used by you during the course of your relationship with
`the Company are and will remain the sole property of the Company. You
`agree to return all such Documents (including all copies) to the Company
`promptly upon the termination of your employment or consultancy, or
`earlier upon the Company’s request. (Emphasis supplied.)
`
`Paragraph 17 required Defendant to acknowledge that “the Company is engaged in a highly
`
`competitive business” and that by virtue of the nature of his employment, “your working or being
`
`employed or engaged to work on or with or in support of any Competing Product will cause the
`
`Company great and irreparable harm.” Paragraph 29 further states “[the] Company will suffer
`
`irreparable harm in the event of any actual or threatened breach by you of th[e] Agreement,” and:
`
`[T]hat the Company may seek a restraining order, preliminary injunction,
`or other court order to enforce this Agreement without the necessity of
`posting a bond or any security that might otherwise be required in
`connection with such relief. You also agree[d] that any request for such
`relief by the Company shall be in addition and without prejudice to any
`claim for monetary damages which the Company might elect to assert.
`
`6705441
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 11 of 30 PageID: 11
`
`Malik Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.
`46.
`In his position at MAIA, Defendant gained a deep understanding of the Company’s
`
`product development processes, and was privy to the Company’s most confidential information.
`
`That information included, but is not limited to MAIA’s trade secrets, formulae, laboratory
`
`processes and procedures, know-how, competitive advantage, manufacturing processes,
`
`techniques, marketing plans and techniques, cost and pricing figures, customer lists, supplier lists,
`
`software, and information relating to MAIA’s employees, suppliers, and persons in contractual
`
`relationships with the Company.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant’s resignation. Defendant gave his manager, Srikanth Sundaram,
`
`President & CSO MAIA (“Sundaram”), telephonic notice of his resignation on January 14, 2022.
`
`Defendant freely admitted that he had decided to leave the Company during December 2021, but
`
`had chosen not to inform the Company for weeks. Defendant indicated that he would leave his
`
`exit date to management, but wanted to leave sooner than later.
`
`48.
`
`On January 18, 2022, Defendant and Mr. Sundaram spoke again by phone, and
`
`Defendant stated that he wished to leave no later than the end of the month. In order to effectuate
`
`a transition of Defendant’s responsibilities, Mr. Sundaram asked him to stay to February 4, 2022,
`
`to which Defendant agreed.
`
`49.
`
`During an in person exit interview with MAIA’s Manager of Operations, Bikram
`
`Malik, conducted in the Company offices on January 20, 2022, Defendant refused to sign a
`
`termination agreement, which referred specifically to the products on which he had worked at
`
`MAIA and his existing confidentiality and non-compete obligations. Defendant stated that he
`
`preferred what he described as the “vagueness” of the Second Confidentiality Agreement, and not
`
`to reiterate his obligation to maintain secrecy of the Company’s confidential Information, even if
`
`that meant foregoing a severance payment.
`
`11
`
`6705441
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 12 of 30 PageID: 12
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant also stated that he had not yet decided on his next job or venture.
`
`In a January 21, 2022 email sent from his Company email address, Defendant
`
`reaffirmed that he would not sign the termination agreement, which had been sent to him
`
`electronically. He sent this email to the Bikram Malik, Manager of Operations stating: “I have
`
`declined to sign the documents and will take Jan. 14th as the employment termination date.” He
`
`offered to drop of his Company laptop “whenever I am in the area”, or the Company could “arrange
`
`for the shipment” if needed sooner.
`
`52.
`
`On the same day, an IT consultant engaged by the Company retrieved Defendant’s
`
`Company-provided laptop from his home, and then placed it in a secure location.
`
`53. MAIA’s discovery of Defendant’s misconduct. On January 21, 2022 after the
`
`Defendant’s refusal to sign the termination agreement, MAIA ran an audit of its secure cloud
`
`server. The audit logs reveal that during the approximately 12 months prior to Defendant’s
`
`resignation from MAIA, he had systematically downloaded to his Company-provided laptop over
`
`30,000 documents containing some of Company’s most competitively sensitive Confidential
`
`Information from its secure electronic database that is accessible only to MAIA personnel for the
`
`purpose of performing work for the Company.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant downloaded approximately 10,000 of these documents during
`
`December 2021 and January 2022 alone, after (on his own account) he was had decided to leave
`
`the Company and was preparing for his departure.
`
`55. Much of the Confidential Information that Defendant systematically downloaded
`
`had no relationship to the three MAIA products for which he was principally responsible, the four
`
`other products on which he occasionally assisted (which was limited to certain R&D elements or
`
`6705441
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 13 of 30 PageID: 13
`
`raw material issues) [MA3, MA1/MA4 & MA8]2 or the two additional products for which he was
`
`otherwise involved (strategically or on pipeline issues) [MA2 & MA5].
`
`56.
`
`Of the nine products that MAIA is developing, Defendant downloaded information
`
`including the research, development, manufacturing, regulatory, strategy, and other sensitive
`
`information for 4 products [MA5-MA7 & MA9]; the entire FDA regulatory submission for 5
`
`products [MA3, MA5-MA7 & MA9]; the Canadian regulatory submission for 3 products [MA2-
`
`MA3 & MA7], the formulation and regulatory strategy and proprietary research for one product
`
`[MA9], and business, commercial and pricing information for a Canadian joint venture between
`
`the Company and a partner. The information broadly covers clinical summaries, regulatory filings,
`
`product manufacturing, complete research and development information, regulatory meeting
`
`materials, patent and formulation strategies etc.
`
`57. MAIA has a formulation patent on product MA5, a provisional patent on MA6 and
`
`has filed a patent application on MA7. MAIA has obtained FDA approval for MA1-MA4 & MA7.
`
`58.
`
`The following MAIA product categories, for which Defendant has misappropriated
`
`the entirety of MAIA’s confidential information, are trade secrets: Formula [MA2, MA5-MA9];
`
`Laboratory/Analytical Process [MA1-MA7]; Manufacturing Process [MA2, MA5-MA7];
`
`Clinical/Non-Clinical
`
`Studies
`
`[MA3-MA8]; Regulatory
`
`[MA1-MA9]; Commercial
`
`Value/Competitive Advantage [MA1, MA3-MA5 & MA9] and Pricing [MA3]. See “MAIA Chart
`
`of Misappropriated Product Information,” annexed as Exhibit A.3
`
`2 In order to protect the identity of these products, which are in various stages of research, development and regulatory
`approval, code names are used herein.
`3 Should the Court request, MAIA is prepared to submit the misappropriated documents containing the Company’s
`trade secrets, proprietary information and confidential information, and any voluminous SecureDocs audit logs and
`locally accessed file logs from Defendant’s laptop, to the Court for in camera review.
`
`6705441
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 14 of 30 PageID: 14
`
`59. A chart of Defendant’s downloading activity by product reveals its magnitude:
`
`Document
`Count
`
`Product
`
`Market
`
`Project
`
`Downloaded Information
`
`US FDA
`
`US FDA
`
`US FDA
`
`Health
`Canada
`
`US FDA
`
`US FDA
`
`US FDA
`
`US FDA
`
`Health
`Canada
`
`US FDA
`
`US FDA
`
`US FDA
`
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`Not
`Employee
`Project
`US FDA Employee
`Project
`
` DATE
`
`Jan. 11,
`2022
`
`Jan. 5,
`2021
`
`Dec. 29,
`2021
`
`May 18,
`2021
`
`Dec. 10,
`2020
`
`Dec. 17,
`2021
`
`July 29,
`2021
`
`Dec. 1-,
`2021
`
`May 21,
`2021
`
`Nov. 24,
`2020
`
`Mar. 1,
`2021
`
`April 5,
`2021
`
`Dec. 24,
`2020
`
`1
`
`MA1
`
`179
`
`MA1
`
`300
`
`MA2
`
`1,997 MA2
`
`3,804 MA2
`
`2,054 MA5
`
`4,108 MA5
`
`4,158 MA6
`
`5,630 MA7
`
`6,107 MA7
`
`8
`
`MA7
`
`1,912 MA3
`
`439
`
`MA9
`
`Clinical Summary Documentation
`
`Sections of the Product Regulatory Filings
`
`Sections of Drug Product Manufacturing
`
`Complete R&D, Manufacturing and Regulatory
`Documentation including Canadian Submission
`
`Complete R&D, Manufacturing and Regulatory
`Documentation including FDA Submission
`
`Sections of Regulatory Strategy
`
`Complete R&D, Manufacturing and Regulatory
`Documentation including FDA Submission
`
`Complete R&D, Manufacturing and Regulatory
`Documentation including FDA Submission
`
`Complete R&D, Manufacturing and Regulatory
`Documentation including Canadian Submission
`
`Complete R&D, Manufacturing and Regulatory
`Documentation including FDA Submission
`
`FDA Meeting Package and Regulatory Strategy
`Documents
`
`Complete R&D, Manufacturing and Regulatory
`Documentation including FDA Submission
`
`Patent and Formulation Strategy Documents
`
`60.
`
`The logs further indicate that Defendant increased the scale and volume of his
`
`downloading from the secure server, and focused his misappropriation activities on particularly
`
`important, and competitively sensitive data and information. During the period from December 1,
`
`6705441
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 15 of 30 PageID: 15
`
`2021 (on which, he admitted to the Company, he had decided to resign) to mid-January 2022 alone,
`
`logs indicate that Defendant downloaded over 10,000 Documents.
`
`Source
`
`MAIA
`Product/Matter
`
`Employee
`Involvement
`
`Downloaded Information
`
`Business Agreements between
`Company and Canadian Joint
`Venture Partner.
`
`8+ Documents
`Entire Formulation Strategy and
`Regulatory strategy documents
`for a pipeline project that has not
`been filed with the FDA.
`10+ Documents
`Entire formulation strategy and
`Regulatory Strategy for a
`pipeline project that has not been
`filed with the FDA.
`
`4000+ Documents
`Entire sections of Product
`Development, Regulatory
`Strategy and FDA Filing for a
`project under FDA review.
`2000+ Documents
`Entire sections of Product
`Development and Regulatory
`Strategy for a project that was
`subject to a 3+ year patent
`litigation, which has been
`reviewed by the FDA.
`300+ Documents
`Entire Product Development
`Section for a project that was
`approved by the FDA in 2019.
`
`179 Documents
`Entire Product Development
`Section for project that has been
`filed and approved by the FDA.
`
`Employee reviews clinical
`summary to FDA for project.
`
`R&D has no
`need to
`review or
`download
`
`Employee
`has no direct
`involvement
`with Project
`
`Employee
`has no direct
`involvement
`with Project
`
`Employee
`has no direct
`involvement
`with Project
`
`Employee
`has no direct
`involvement
`with Project
`
`Employee
`was not
`involved
`with
`development
`of the drug
`Employee
`has no direct
`involvement
`with Project
`
`Employee
`has no direct
`involvement
`with Project
`
`Days Before /
`After
`Resignation
`
`-60
`
`Date
`
`Nov.
`15,
`2021
`
`Dec. 6,
`2021
`
`-39
`
`Dec. 8,
`2021
`
`-37
`
`Dec. 10,
`2021
`
`-35
`
`Dec. 17,
`2021
`
`-28
`
`Confidential
`Business
`Agreements
`with Canadian
`Partner
`MA5
`
`SecureDocs
`Cloud Drive
`Activity
`
`SecureDocs
`Cloud Drive
`Activity
`
` MA8
`
`SecureDocs
`Cloud Drive
`Activity
`
`MA6
`
`SecureDocs
`Cloud Drive
`Activity
`
`MA5
`
`SecureDocs
`Cloud Drive
`Activity
`
`Dec. 29,
`2021
`
`-16
`
`MA2
`
`SecureDocs
`Cloud Drive
`Activity
`
`Jan. 11,
`2022
`
`-3
`
`Jan. 12,
`2022
`
`-2
`
`6705441
`
`MA1
`
`SecureDocs
`Cloud Drive
`Activity
`
`MA1
`
`SecureDocs
`Cloud Drive
`Activity
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 16 of 30 PageID: 16
`
`61. MAIA demands that Defendant disclose the scope of his misconduct, and
`
`Defendant lies in response. On January 24, 2022, MAIA sent Defendant a cease a desist letter.
`
`The letter reiterated Defendant’s obligations under the First and Second Confidentiality
`
`Agreements, summarized the general results of the Company’s server audit, and instructed him to
`
`not to disclose any Company confidential information under penalty of federal and state law. The
`
`letter stated: “Given [the] timing and scale of your systematic downloading of the Company’s
`
`Confidential Information, and the fact that much of the material you took had no apparent
`
`relationship to your work for the Company, it is apparent that you engaged [in] a massive and
`
`calculated theft scheme.” The letter provided Defendant until January 25, 2022 at 5 p.m. EST to
`
`provide the Company’s counsel with a letter:
`
`a. Listing every Company Document and other item of Confidential
`Information he downloaded or otherwise took from MAIA;
`b. Stating where each copy of such Document or other Confidential
`Information is located (including any computer storage or other
`electronic media on which such materials are stored); and
`Identifying any and all persons or entities with whom he shared, or to whom
`he transferred, any Documents or other Company Confidential Information.
`
`c.
`
`Additionally, the letter demanded that Defendant return all Company documents in his possession,
`
`custody or control. See January 24, 2022 letter, Declaration of David R. Lurie (“Lurie Decl.”), ¶
`
`2, Exh. A.
`
`62.
`
`On January 25, 2022, Defendant sent the Company’s counsel a letter denying that
`
`he had kept any Company confidential information in paper or electronic form or shared it with
`
`anyone. He claimed that the Company “granted me access to all the files that I many have accessed
`
`during my employment” to discharge his duties as “a Senior Director.” However, Defendant
`
`offered no explanation as to why he downloaded the enormous volume of information he accessed,
`
`6705441
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00610 Document 1 Filed 02/04/22 Page 17 of 30 PageID: 17
`
`including for products for which he had no responsibility. See Januar