Ethicon, Inc. v. Laura Angelini ( 2017 )

Case: 16-16596 Date Filed: 05/03/2017 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16596
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:16-cv-01124-BJD-PDB
ETHICON, INC.,
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
LAURA ANGELINI,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 3, 2017)
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-16596 Date Filed: 05/03/2017 Page: 2 of 5
Laura Angelini, a former employee of Ethicon, Inc., and DePuy
Orthopaedics, brings this interlocutory appeal of the district court’s grant of a
motion for preliminary injunction enjoining her from beginning employment in the
biosurgery division at Baxter Healthcare. On appeal, Angelini argues that the non-
compete underlying the injunction is unenforceable as applied to her because she
lacks intimate knowledge of the alleged confidential information that the non-
compete seeks to protect. Angelini also argues that the district court lacked
authority to grant the motion not only because there was no “actual and imminent”
injury but also because the district court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing.
After a careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we agree that an
evidentiary hearing was necessary. We vacate and remand for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Ethicon and DePuy are companies within Johnson and Johnson’s (J&J)
Medical Device sector. J&J, a multinational conglomerate comprised of more
than 260 companies, is the world’s largest medical device, consumer products and
pharmaceutical company. Its Medical Device sector alone is comprised of several
companies, including both Ethicon and DePuy. Ethicon develops, manufactures,
and markets biosurgery products that are dedicated to minimizing operation
complications for surgical conditions that are difficult to manage through the use
of standard surgical techniques. DePuy develops, manufactures, and markets
2
Case: 16-16596 Date Filed: 05/03/2017 Page: 3 of 5
implants and instrumentation for use in orthopedic surgeries that repair and heal
the musculoskeletal system.
Angelini has worked in various marketing positions, in various J&J
companies, for over 20 years. In her most recent position at J&J, Angelini re-
entered the Medical Device sector, after a three-year hiatus, as the Global
Platform Leader for Joints at DePuy. At DePuy she was responsible for
managing upstream marketing for orthopedic products such as hips, knees, and
power drills used in orthopedic surgery. Upon taking this position, Angelini
executed an 18-month restrictive covenant that prevents her from performing
work for any competitor, of any of J&J’s companies, if she could disclose or use
confidential information to advantage the competitor and disadvantage J&J. The
covenant also contains a New Jersey choice-of-law provision.
Angelini’s position as the Global Platform Leader for DePuy gave her access
to confidential emails and required her to attend and present at a three-day
workshop comprised of presentations by J&J’s various Medical Device
businesses. Ethicon gave a 20 minute substantive presentation at the workshop,
which consisted of pre-read material and other accompanying oral remarks by the
presenter regarding confidential information about a number of Ethicon’s
products. The confidential emails that Angelini received and Ethicon’s 20-minute
substantive presentation at the workshop are at issue here.
3
Case: 16-16596 Date Filed: 05/03/2017 Page: 4 of 5
We review a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of
discretion, and we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error.
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 299 F.3d 1242,
1246 (11th Cir. 2002). Our review of the district court’s application of the law,
however, is de novo. Id.“We may reverse the district court’s order only if there was a clear abuse of
discretion.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1175 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)
(en banc) (emphasis in original). A district court abuses its discretion in granting
a preliminary injunction without holding an evidentiary hearing if “the injunction
turns on the resolution of bitterly disputed facts” and there is a need “to decide
credibility issues.” All Care Nursing Serv. Inc. v. Bethesda Mem’l Hosp. Inc.,
887 F.2d 1535, 1538 (11th Cir. 1989).
While Angelini’s attendance at the workshop is undisputed, the significance
of her attendance is disputed. The parties dispute whether Angelini became privy
to Ethicon’s confidential information through her presence at the workshop and
her receipt of some confidential emails. Specifically, the parties dispute the level
and scope of Angelini’s participation at the workshop and Angelini’s familiarity
and knowledge of the information in the pre-read materials and the emails.
Angelini argues that she is not privy to Ethicon’s confidential information
because she did not read the pre-read materials or the emails and because she has
4
Case: 16-16596 Date Filed: 05/03/2017 Page: 5 of 5
no recollection of the information provided to her. Ethicon and DePuy argue that
Angelini is privy not only because was she continuously exposed to confidential
information in her position at DePuy, but also because she participated in the
workshop and asked questions during Ethicon’s presentation.
In granting the injunction, the district court abused its discretion by making
credibility determinations without an evidentiary hearing. See id. In determining
that Angelini is privy to the confidential information, the court credited the
statements of individuals claiming that Angelini participated during Ethicon’s
presentation, in the face of Angelini’s own statement that she paid no attention to
either the pre-read materials or the emails. Indeed, the district court’s
interpretation of the statements provided is plausible. Angelini could have been
paying close attention to Ethicon’s presentation and she could have been actively
participating in the sharing of that information, meaning that she is in fact privy to
the confidential information at issue. But the opposite conclusion is just as
plausible. And “[i]n the face of two plausible interpretations of evidence
submitted to demonstrate a contested issue, the district court is not at liberty to
accept one construction of the evidence and reject the other without the benefit of
an evidentiary hearing.” CBS Broad. Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’n Corp., 265 F.3d
1193, 1207–08 (11th Cir. 2001).
VACATED and REMANDED.
5