Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 1 of 21. PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`(YOUNGSTOWN DIVISION)
`
`
`DATACOM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`SHAWN E. CAMPBELL and
`CONNECTED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, DataCom, Inc. (“DataCom”), hereby files this Civil Action Complaint against
`
`Defendants, Shawn E. Campbell (“Campbell”) and Connected Technologies, LLC (“Connected
`
`Technologies”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and avers as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`DataCom seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages against Defendants for
`
`their ongoing misappropriation of DataCom’s trade secrets and to redress the fact that Campbell –
`
`who was employed as DataCom’s President and General Manager – surreptitiously formed and
`
`began competing with DataCom through his new business, Connected Technologies, while he was
`
`still actively employed and being compensated by DataCom. In fact, Campbell not only copied
`
`confidential and proprietary information from DataCom’s electronic databases on his way out the
`
`door, but Defendants have already used that confidential and proprietary information to steal at
`
`least one project from DataCom. Despite being instructed to cease and desist from their unlawful
`
`conduct by DataCom’s legal counsel, Defendants have failed to do so, and should they continue
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 2 of 21. PageID #: 2
`
`to go unchecked, DataCom will lose a significant and presently indeterminable amount of revenue,
`
`along with established customer relationships and market share that it may never be able to recover.
`
`2.
`
`Accordingly, DataCom comes now to this Honorable Court to protect its legitimate
`
`business interests in its customer relationships and goodwill, which Defendants seek to destroy
`
`through their egregious and unjustified conduct.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`DataCom is an Ohio Corporation, with its principal place of business located at
`
`11757 Market Street, North Lima, OH 44452.
`
`4.
`
`Campbell is an adult individual who resides at 44238 State Route 558, Columbiana,
`
`OH 44408.
`
`5.
`
`Connected Technologies is an Ohio Limited Liability Company, with a registered
`
`business address of P.O. Box 177, New Waterford, OH 44445. Campbell’s Wife, Krystal Dawn
`
`Campbell, is designated as Connected Technologies’ “Statutory Agent” for service of process.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court may properly maintain jurisdiction over Defendants because: (i) they
`
`reside within Ohio; and (ii) Defendants’ contacts with the Northern District of Ohio are sufficient
`
`for the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants, satisfying the standard set forth by the Supreme
`
`Court of the United States in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
`
`7.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over
`
`Count I of this Complaint because said Count arises under the laws of the United States.
`
`8.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Counts
`
`II, III, and IV of this Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 3 of 21. PageID #: 3
`
`FACTS
`
`A.
`
`9.
`
`DataCom’s Highly-Specialized Business and Campbell’s Position of Trust
`
`DataCom is a licensed telecommunications contractor, with more than twenty years
`
`of experience in the industry, which is highly competitive in nature.
`
`10.
`
`DataCom provides a wide variety of telecommunication services, including, but not
`
`limited to, the installation of telephone systems and data networking, fire stopping, lightning and
`
`surge protection, video surveillance, access control, and cellular solution services (collectively, the
`
`“Services”), to commercial and industrial customers in and throughout the Mahoning Valley.
`
`11.
`
`The majority of Services provided by DataCom are not subject to public bidding,
`
`and instead, it is necessary for Datacom to rely upon the customer relationships and goodwill that
`
`it is has developed over more than twenty years in order to successfully bid on and secure work.
`
`12.
`
`On April 23, 1997, Campbell became employed by DataCom as its President and
`
`General Manager.
`
`13.
`
`Campbell continued to hold the position of DataCom’s President and General
`
`Manager until February 18, 2021, the date of his abrupt resignation.
`
`14.
`
`As DataCom’s President and General Manager, Campbell was DataCom’s highest-
`
`level employee and was responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of DataCom, as well
`
`as supervising DataCom’s employees.
`
`15.
`
`Campbell was also directly responsible for making sales, generating new business,
`
`and ensuring that DataCom’s existing customer relationships remained intact.
`
`16.
`
`Solely for the purpose of performing his job duties as DataCom’s President and
`
`General Manager, Campbell was entrusted with a substantial amount of confidential information
`
`belonging to DataCom, including, but not limited to, DataCom’s contractual terms with customers
`
`and third party vendors, customer lists, pricing information, bid proposals, project specifications
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 4 of 21. PageID #: 4
`
`and technical data, customer billing and payment data, profits, profit margins, revenues, budgeting
`
`information, and information contained in DataCom’s electronic customer management databases
`
`and the estimating software that it purchased from ConEst Software Systems (collectively, the
`
`“Confidential Information”).
`
`17.
`
`During his employment with DataCom, Campbell was required to hold DataCom’s
`
`Confidential Information in strict confidence, for the sole benefit of DataCom, and not for any
`
`other person or entity, especially any competing business.
`
`18.
`
`Campbell also routinely used DataCom’s Confidential Information to formulate
`
`and submit Bid Proposals to customers and customer prospects on behalf of DataCom, and we was
`
`required to do so using the company e-mail address assigned to him by DataCom.
`
`19.
`
`At no time was Campbell authorized to use his personal e-mail address to perform
`
`any work on behalf of DataCom.
`
`B.
`
`
`20.
`
`Campbell’s Surreptitious Efforts to Compete with DataCom and Brazen Theft
`of DataCom’s Confidential Information
`
`In mid-September 2020, it was announced that DataCom was being purchased by
`
`another business.
`
`21.
`
`Displeased because DataCom would not be sold to him, Campbell embarked upon
`
`a campaign to misappropriate DataCom’s Confidential Information and start a competing business
`
`(Connected Technologies), while concealing his misconduct from DataCom and its owners.
`
`22.
`
`To that end, on September 28, 2020, Campbell wrote to Paula Gomez, DataCom’s
`
`point of contact at ConEst Software Systems, and asked for a price quote for a new estimating
`
`software system. (A true and correct copy of Campbell’s 9/28/20 E-Mail Exchange with ConEst
`
`Software Systems is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 5 of 21. PageID #: 5
`
`23.
`
`Campbell represented to ConEst Software Systems that he was requesting a price
`
`quotation for a “friend” who was “looking to go out on her own,” as opposed to requesting
`
`information for DataCom, Campbell’s then-current employer. (See Ex. A).
`
`24.
`
`In reality, that “friend” is Campbell’s wife, Krystal Dawn Campbell, as confirmed
`
`by the fact that Campbell provided ConEst Software Systems with his wife’s personal e-mail
`
`address and telephone number. (Id.).
`
`25.
`
`The very next day, on September 29, 2020, Campbell forwarded a comprehensive
`
`electronic database which DataCom uses to maintain Confidential Information (the “Electronic
`
`Database”) to his personal e-mail address, without any authority to do so.
`
`26.
`
`Among other things, the Electronic Database contains the following data, which
`
`Datacom entrusted Campbell to hold in strict confidence and for the sole benefit of DataCom:
`
`a) The names of and contact information for DataCom’s customers;
`
`b) Pricing information for all Work Orders that DataCom completed for customers
`
`during the time period of February 15, 2018 through September 24, 2020;
`
`c) Information related to billing and invoices for each of DataCom’s customers
`
`and the Work Orders that it completed during the time period of February 15,
`
`2018 through September 24, 2020;
`
`d) DataCom’s revenues and profit margins the Work Orders that it completed
`
`during the time period of February 15, 2018 through September 24, 2020; and
`
`e) DataCom’s internal costs for completing each of the Work Orders referenced
`
`in the Electronic Database.
`
`27.
`
`If disclosed to a competitor, the data contained in the Electronic Database would
`
`place DataCom at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 6 of 21. PageID #: 6
`
`28.
`
`Campbell’s secretive conduct did not stop there, and, upon information and belief,
`
`from October 2020 through January 2021, Campbell continued planning and taking affirmative
`
`steps to form and compete with DataCom through Connected Technologies.
`
`29.
`
`Then, on February 1, 2021 – while he was still actively employed by DataCom as
`
`its President and General Manager – Campbell caused Articles of Organization to be filed for
`
`Connected Technologies. (A true and correct copy of the 2/1/21 Articles of Organization are
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit “B”).
`
`30.
`
`Campbell caused the Articles of Organization for Connected Technologies to be
`
`filed through his wife, Krystal Dawn Campbell, who, upon information and belief, does not play
`
`any active role in operating Connected Technologies.
`
`31.
`
`According to his LinkedIn Profile, since February 2021, Campbell has been
`
`employed by Connected Technologies as a “Project Estimator,” but, upon information and belief,
`
`he is actually responsible for running the day-to-day operations of Connected Technologies.
`
`32.
`
`To make matters worse, on February 15, 2021 – just three (3) days before he
`
`abruptly resigned from DataCom on February 18, 2021 – Campbell used DataCom’s computer
`
`network to create a copy of DataCom’s electronic ConEst Estimating Software Database, which
`
`contains highly sensitive and proprietary information related to all of DataCom’s customers, bid
`
`proposals, outstanding projects, and pricing information.
`
`33.
`
`Notably, during his employment with DataCom, Campbell was never responsible
`
`for preparing electronic back-ups or file copies, and thus, it is clear that Campbell deliberately
`
`copied DataCom’s ConEst Estimating Software Database for his own benefit and the benefit of
`
`his new business, Connected Technologies.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 7 of 21. PageID #: 7
`
`34.
`
`Leading up to February 15, 2021, Campbell began bringing his personal tablet
`
`device with him to the office, and, upon information and belief, Campbell transferred the
`
`information that he copied from DataCom’s ConEst Estimating Software Database to that personal
`
`tablet device.
`
`35.
`
`As DataCom’s former President and General Manager, and armed with DataCom’s
`
`Confidential Information (which he copied and stole), Campbell is uniquely positioned to harm
`
`DataCom’s business and customer relationships, and he has already done just that.
`
`C.
`
`36.
`
`Defendants’ Theft of the Western Transit Reserve Authority Project
`
`On December 1, 2020, Campbell submitted a Bid Proposal to DataCom’s long-term
`
`customer, MG-Electric, for an electrical project being performed for the Western Transit Reserve
`
`Authority (the “WRTA Project”).
`
`37.
`
`The Bid Proposal that Campbell submitted to MG-Electric on behalf of DataCom
`
`included DataCom’s technical specifications and pricing for the WRTA Project, and Campbell
`
`only gained access to that information through his former position with DataCom. (A true and
`
`correct copy of DataCom’s 12/1/20 Bid Proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”).1
`
`38.
`
`On or about February 16, 2021, DataCom was informed by Murphy Contracting
`
`that it would commence work on the WRTA Project, beginning February 22, 2021.
`
`39.
`
`However, on or about February 23, 2021 – just five (5) days after Campbell
`
`abruptly resigned and made a complete copy of all of the information contained in DataCom’s
`
`ConEst Estimating Software Database – Connected Technologies began working on the WRTA
`
`Project instead of DataCom.
`
`
`
`
`1 Exhibit “C” has been redacted to exclude Datacom’s specifications and pricing information.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 8 of 21. PageID #: 8
`
`40.
`
`Defendants cannot dispute the fact that they are now working on the WRTA Project
`
`because on March 19, 2021, MG-Electric mistakenly used Campbell’s former DataCom company
`
`e-mail address to transmit details related to the WRTA Project. (A true and correct copy of
`
`Campbell’s 3/19/21 E-Mail Exchange with MG-Electric is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”).
`
`41.
`
`By using the Confidential Information that he stole from DataCom to divert the
`
`WRTA Project away from DataCom for the benefit of himself and Connected Technologies,
`
`Campbell has caused substantial harm to DataCom in the form of lost customer goodwill and
`
`profits to be generated from the WRTA Project.
`
`D.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants’ Ongoing Refusal to Cease & Desist Their Unlawful Conduct
`
`After discovering that Campbell had: (i) started and began operating a competing
`
`business while he was still actively employed as DataCom’s President and General Manager; and
`
`(ii) used DataCom’s Confidential Information to steal the WRTA Project, on March 5, 2021,
`
`DataCom’s legal counsel sent a letter to Campbell (the “Cease & Desist Letter”), demanding that
`
`he immediately cease and desist from his unlawful conduct. (A true and correct copy of the 3/5/31
`
`Cease & Desist Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”).
`
`43.
`
`To date, Defendants have not provided any response to the Cease & Desist Letter,
`
`and instead, they continue to use the Confidential Information which Campbell stole to solicit and
`
`attempt to divert additional projects away from DataCom.
`
`44.
`
`For instance, on November 19, 2020, Campbell submitted a Bid Proposal on behalf
`
`of Datacom for an electrical project to be performed for another DataCom customer, Becdel
`
`Controls, Inc. (the “Ravenna Machine Gun Range II Project”). (A true and correct copy of
`
`DataCom’s 11/19/20 Bid Proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”).2
`
`
`2 Exhibit “F” has been redacted to exclude DataCom’s specifications and pricing information.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 9 of 21. PageID #: 9
`
`45.
`
`By exploiting his access to and utilizing DataCom’s Confidential Information,
`
`including its technical specifications, and pricing information, Campbell submitted a competing
`
`bid for the Ravenna Machine Gun Range II Project on behalf of Connected Technologies.
`
`46. Without an injunction from the Court to put an end to Campbell’s unlawful conduct,
`
`DataCom will continue to suffer irreparable harm, including loss of good will, reputation, and an
`
`indeterminate amount of business and volume from customers.
`
`47. Moreover, without intervention by the Court, Campbell will continue to utilize
`
`Confidential Information and other trade secrets for his own benefit and to the detriment of
`
`DataCom, the full extent of which cannot be readily determined.
`
`48.
`
`In short, Campbell’s unlawful conduct and unauthorized retention of DataCom’s
`
`Confidential Information threatens to destroy DataCom’s business in the Mahoning Valley, which
`
`it has spent more than twenty (20) years building.
`
`COUNT I
`THE DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT
` (DataCom v. Defendants)
`
`49.
`
`DataCom incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs of this Complaint as though set
`
`
`
`forth at length herein.
`
`50.
`
`The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq., broadly defines
`
`the term “Trade Secrets” to include all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical,
`
`economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices,
`
`formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes,
`
`whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically,
`
`electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing, where: (a) the owner thereof has taken
`
`reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (b) the information derives independent
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 10 of 21. PageID #: 10
`
`economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily
`
`ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the
`
`disclosure or use of the information.
`
`51.
`
`DataCom’s trade secrets are comprised of, inter alia, its contractual terms with
`
`customers and third party vendors, customer lists, pricing information, bid proposals, project
`
`specifications and technical data, customer billing and payment data, profits, profit margins,
`
`revenues, budgeting information, and information contained in DataCom’s electronic customer
`
`management databases and the estimating software that it purchased from ConEst Software
`
`Systems, all of which were acquired and developed at great cost to DataCom and constitute “Trade
`
`Secrets” within the meaning of that term under the DTSA.
`
`52.
`
`These trade secrets would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to duplicate
`
`independently, if they could be at all.
`
`53.
`
`These trade secrets are the exclusive property of DataCom, have been maintained
`
`in secrecy by DataCom, are not known to the public or within DataCom’s industry and are of great
`
`pecuniary value to DataCom.
`
`54.
`
`DataCom entrusted its trade secrets to Campbell as the President and General
`
`Manager of DataCom and for the exclusive purpose of benefitting DataCom.
`
`55.
`
`DataCom derives independent economic value from its trade secrets not being
`
`generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means to third parties that could obtain
`
`economic value from the use of DataCom’s trade secrets.
`
`56.
`
`Campbell had a duty to refrain from misusing or misappropriating DataCom’s trade
`
`secrets that were entrusted to him because they are exclusive property of DataCom.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 11 of 21. PageID #: 11
`
`57.
`
`Campbell breached his duty to DataCom by intentionally, knowingly, and by
`
`wrongful and improper means, misappropriating DataCom’s trade secrets for his personal benefit
`
`and the benefit of his new business, Connected Technologies.
`
`58.
`
`The DTSA expressly authorizes this Court to enjoin Defendants from any actual or
`
`threatened misappropriation of DataCom’s trade secrets.
`
`59.
`
`Furthermore, unless Defendants are enjoined from using and disclosing DataCom’s
`
`trade secrets, the value of a substantial part of DataCom’s business will be irreparably harmed.
`
`60.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misappropriation of DataCom’s
`
`trade secrets, DataCom has suffered, and continues to suffer, immediate irreparable injury, for
`
`which DataCom has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`61.
`
`In addition to the irreparable injury described above, as a direct and proximate
`
`result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, DataCom has suffered and/or will suffer actual and/or
`
`consequential damages, including loss of competitive business advantage, opportunity, and/or
`
`expectancy.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants have acted with wanton, willful, malicious, and/or reckless
`
`indifference, and as a result, is liable for punitive damages under the DTSA.
`
`WHEREFORE, DataCom demands the entry of a judgment in favor of DataCom and
`
`against Defendants providing the following relief:
`
`a)
`
`An injunction ordering that: (i) Defendants shall immediately return to DataCom
`
`and shall not use, copy, or disclose any files, materials, and/or Confidential
`
`Information belonging to DataCom; (ii) at their sole expense, Defendants shall
`
`provide DataCom with a written certification of completion from a qualified
`
`independent computer vendor to be selected by DataCom, confirming that any and
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 12 of 21. PageID #: 12
`
`all Confidential Information belonging to DataCom has been permanently deleted
`
`from any and all computers and other electronic devices and storage devices in the
`
`custody, possession, and/or control of Defendants; (iii) Defendants shall withdraw
`
`any and all proposals that Defendants have submitted for and cease performing
`
`work on the WRTA Project and/or the Ravenna Machine Gun Range II Project; (iv)
`
`Defendants shall withdraw any and all other proposals that they have submitted to
`
`any entities to which Campbell submitted a bid proposal and/or for which Campbell
`
`performed any work on behalf of DataCom from January 1, 2020 through February
`
`18, 2021 (collectively, the “Restricted Customers”); and (v) through February 18,
`
`2022, Defendants shall not, in any function or capacity, whether for their own
`
`account or the account of any other person or entity, directly or indirectly, solicit
`
`the sale of, market, perform services, or sell products or services similar to those
`
`sold or provided by DataCom to or for any Restricted Customer;
`
`b)
`
`Compensatory damages, including without limitation lost profits and all damages
`
`resulting from Campbell’s breach of his statutory and common law obligations;
`
`c)
`
`An accounting and equitable disgorgement for a payment to DataCom of all profits
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`g)
`
`and earnings of Defendants’ resulting from their misconduct;
`
`Statutory and exemplary damages for violation of the DTSA and UTSA;
`
`Attorney’s fees as provided under the DTSA and UTSA;
`
`Punitive damages against both Campbell and Connected Technologies; and
`
`Such other or further relief as the Court may determine is necessary to provide
`
`complete relief for DataCom resulting from Defendants’ violations of law.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 13 of 21. PageID #: 13
`
`COUNT II
`THE OHIO UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
` (DataCom v. Defendants)
`
`DataCom incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs of this Complaint as though set
`
`63.
`
`forth at length herein.
`
`64.
`
`The Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1333.61,
`
`et seq., broadly defines the term “Trade Secret” to include the whole or any portion or phase of
`
`any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, pattern, compilation,
`
`program, device, method, technique, or improvement, or any business information or plans,
`
`financial information, or listing of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, that (a) derives
`
`independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being
`
`readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its
`
`disclosure or use; and (b) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to
`
`maintain its secrecy.
`
`65.
`
`DataCom’s Confidential Information constitutes “Trade Secrets” as that term is
`
`broadly defined under the UTSA.
`
`66.
`
`These trade secrets would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to duplicate
`
`independently, if they could be at all.
`
`67.
`
`These trade secrets are the exclusive property of DataCom have been maintained
`
`in secrecy by DataCom, are not known to the public or within DataCom’s industry and are of great
`
`pecuniary value to DataCom.
`
`68.
`
`DataCom entrusted its trade secrets to Campbell its President and General Manager
`
`for the exclusive purpose of benefitting DataCom.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 14 of 21. PageID #: 14
`
`69.
`
`DataCom derives independent economic value from its trade secrets not being
`
`generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means to third parties that could obtain
`
`economic value from the use of DataCom’s trade secrets.
`
`70.
`
`Campbell had a duty to refrain from misusing or misappropriating DataCom’s trade
`
`secrets that were entrusted to him because they are exclusive property of DataCom.
`
`71.
`
`Campbell breached his duty to DataCom by intentionally, knowingly, and by
`
`wrongful and improper means, misappropriating DataCom’s trade secrets for his personal benefit
`
`and the benefit of his new business, Connected Technologies.
`
`72.
`
`The UTSA expressly authorizes this Court to enjoin Defendants from any actual or
`
`threatened misappropriation of DataCom’s trade secrets.
`
`73.
`
`Furthermore, unless Defendants are enjoined from using and disclosing DataCom’s
`
`trade secrets, the value of a substantial part of DataCom’s business will be irreparably harmed.
`
`74.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misappropriation of DataCom’s
`
`trade secrets, DataCom’s has suffered, and continues to suffer, immediate irreparable injury for
`
`which DataCom has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`75.
`
`In addition to the irreparable injury described above, as a direct and proximate
`
`result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, DataCom has suffered and/or will suffer actual and/or
`
`consequential damages, including loss of competitive business advantage, opportunity, and/or
`
`expectancy.
`
`WHEREFORE, DataCom demands the entry of a judgment in favor of DataCom and
`
`against Defendants providing the following relief:
`
`a)
`
`An injunction ordering that: (i) Defendants shall immediately return to DataCom
`
`and shall not use, copy, or disclose any files, materials, and/or Confidential
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 15 of 21. PageID #: 15
`
`Information belonging to DataCom; (ii) at their sole expense, Defendants shall
`
`provide DataCom with a written certification of completion from a qualified
`
`independent computer vendor to be selected by DataCom, confirming that any and
`
`all Confidential Information belonging to DataCom has been permanently deleted
`
`from any and all computers and other electronic devices and storage devices in the
`
`custody, possession, and/or control of Defendants; (iii) Defendants shall withdraw
`
`any and all proposals that Defendants have submitted for and cease performing
`
`work on the WRTA Project and/or the Ravenna Machine Gun Range II Project; (iv)
`
`Defendants shall withdraw any and all other proposals that they have submitted to
`
`any entities to which Campbell submitted a bid proposal and/or for which Campbell
`
`performed any work on behalf of DataCom from January 1, 2020 through February
`
`18, 2021 (collectively, the “Restricted Customers”); and (v) through February 18,
`
`2022, Defendants shall not, in any function or capacity, whether for their own
`
`account or the account of any other person or entity, directly or indirectly, solicit
`
`the sale of, market, perform services, or sell products or services similar to those
`
`sold or provided by DataCom to or for any Restricted Customer;
`
`b)
`
`Compensatory damages, including without limitation lost profits and all damages
`
`resulting from Campbell’s breach of his statutory and common law obligations;
`
`c)
`
`An accounting and equitable disgorgement for a payment to DataCom of all profits
`
`and earnings of Defendants’ resulting from their misconduct;
`
`Statutory and exemplary damages for violation of the DTSA and UTSA;
`
`Attorney’s fees as provided under the DTSA and UTSA;
`
`Punitive damages against both Campbell and Connected Technologies; and
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 16 of 21. PageID #: 16
`
`g)
`
`Such other or further relief as the Court may determine is necessary to provide
`
`complete relief for DataCom resulting from Defendants’ violations of law.
`
`COUNT III
`BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
`(DataCom v. Campbell)
`
`DataCom incorporates the foregoing Paragraphs of this Complaint as though set
`
`76.
`
`forth at length herein.
`
`77.
`
`Pursuant to Campbell’s employment relationship with DataCom as its President
`
`and General Manager, he was placed in a position of trust regarding DataCom’s operations,
`
`customers, projects, Confidential Information, and trade secrets.
`
`78.
`
`As DataCom’s President and General Manager, Campbell actively participated in
`
`the management of DataCom and maintained discretionary authority in that capacity, including
`
`the discretion to implement policies, procedures, and protocols for DataCom.
`
`79.
`
`Based upon his employment relationship and position of trust within DataCom as
`
`its President and General Manager, Campbell owed a fiduciary duty to act solely for DataCom’s
`
`benefit during his employment therewith.
`
`80.
`
`Nonetheless, while Campbell was still employed by DataCom as its President and
`
`General Manager, without DataCom’s knowledge or consent, Campbell surreptitiously: (i) started
`
`Connected Technologies, to compete directly with DataCom for the same customers and within
`
`the same geographic area served by DataCom; and (ii) accessed, copied, and funneled DataCom’s
`
`Confidential Information to himself for the purpose of competing with DataCom through his new
`
`business, Connected Technologies.
`
`81.
`
`Campbell has used and will continue to use DataCom’s Confidential Information
`
`for the benefit of himself and Connected Technologies.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 17 of 21. PageID #: 17
`
`82.
`
`Campbell’s aforementioned misconduct constitutes a breach of his fiduciary duty
`
`to DataCom, as its President and General Manager.
`
`83.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Campbell’s wrongful conduct described herein,
`
`DataCom has sustained and will continue to sustain immediate and irreparable harm and injury for
`
`which it has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`84.
`
`In addition to the irreparable injury described above, as a direct and proximate
`
`result of Campbell’s wrongful conduct, DataCom has suffered and/or will suffer actual and/or
`
`consequential damages, including loss of competitive business advantage, opportunity, and/or
`
`expectancy.
`
`85.
`
`Campbell has acted with wanton, willful, malicious, and/or reckless indifference,
`
`and as a result, is liable for punitive damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, DataCom demands the entry of a judgment in favor of DataCom and
`
`against Defendants providing the following relief:
`
`a)
`
`An injunction ordering that: (i) Defendants shall immediately return to DataCom
`
`and shall not use, copy, or disclose any files, materials, and/or Confidential
`
`Information belonging to DataCom; (ii) at their sole expense, Defendants shall
`
`provide DataCom with a written certification of completion from a qualified
`
`independent computer vendor to be selected by DataCom, confirming that any and
`
`all Confidential Information belonging to DataCom has been permanently deleted
`
`from any and all computers and other electronic devices and storage devices in the
`
`custody, possession, and/or control of Defendants; (iii) Defendants shall withdraw
`
`any and all proposals that Defendants have submitted for and cease performing
`
`work on the WRTA Project and/or the Ravenna Machine Gun Range II Project; (iv)
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00751-BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/07/21 18 of 21. PageID #: 18
`
`Defendants shall withdraw any and all other proposals that they have submitted to
`
`any entities to which Campbell submitted a bid proposal and/or for which Campbell
`
`performed any work on behalf of DataCom from January 1, 2020 through February
`
`18, 2021 (collectively, the “Restricted Customers”); and (v) through February 18,
`
`2022, Defendants shall not, in any function or capacity, whether for their own
`
`account or the account of any other person or entity, directly or indirectly, solicit
`
`the sale of, market, perform services, or sell products or services similar to those
`
`sold or provided by DataCom to or for any Restricted Customer;
`
`b)
`
`Compensatory damages, including without limitation lost profits and all damages
`
`resulting from Campbell’s breach of his statutory and common law obligations;
`
`c)
`
`An accounting and equitable