The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PCC AIRFOILS, LLC, ) CASE NO.: 1:25-CV-00917
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
)
v. )
)
JUSTIN DAUGHERTY, et al., ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
) AND ORDER
Defendants. )
Plaintiff PCC Airfoils, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “PCC”) moves the Court for a preliminary
injunction. (Docs. 2, 15.) Defendants Justin Daugherty (“Daugherty”) and Consolidated
Precision Products Corp. (“Consolidated Precision Products”) (collectively “Defendants”)
oppose the request. (Docs. 11, 22.) On July 31, 2025, the Court held an evidentiary hearing.
After the hearing, the parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
(Docs. 34, 35.) For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff has not clearly shown it is entitled to
injunctive relief.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
1. Daugherty’s Tenure at PCC
PCC manufactures castings for industrial gas turbine (“IGT”) airfoils. (Doc. 33, Hrg. Tr.,
(Sitabkhan) at 964-68.)1 A turbine blade is a type of airfoil. (Id. at 950.) PCC’s primary facility
1 For ease and consistency, record citations are to the electronically stamped CM/ECF document
for IGT products is in Mentor, Ohio. (Id. at 964-68.) The IGT industry is highly concentrated.
(Id. at 982-83, 1001, 1010.) PCC’s competitors include Consolidated Precision Products,
Howmet Aerospace Inc., Doncasters Group Ltd., and Chromalloy Gas Turbine LLC. (Id.) PCC
is the market leader for IGT airfoils and Consolidated Precision Products ranks third or fourth in
terms of market share. (Id. at 982.) Consolidated Precision Products manufactures IGT airfoils
at its plant in Eastlake, Ohio. (Id. (Daugherty) at 1266.)
PCC’s manufacturing processes and the documents detailing its processes are trade
secrets. (Id. (Sitabkhan) at 964-74.) The overall IGT casting process includes several stages:
wax, ceramics, metal casting, tooling, and inspection. (Id.) Documented processes are set out in
PCC’s Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”). (Id. (Daugherty) at 1205-08.) PCC’s trade
secrets also include pricing structures and cost estimates. (Id. (Sitabkhan) at 974; id. (Polen) at
1037-38; id. (Daugherty) at 1251.)
In 1998, Daugherty joined PCC as a Product Engineer at PCC Mentor. (Id. (Daugherty).
at 1198-99.) After approximately ten years, he was promoted to Engineering Lead. (Id. at 1198-
99, 1204.) Daugherty held that role until about 2013. (Id. at 1205.) In these roles, Daugherty
was responsible for solving various problems with the IGT manufacturing process, including
controlling scrap rates and improving yield for each part. (Id. at 1198-99.) As an engineer at
PCC, Daugherty utilized the Six Sigma methodology to solve engineering problems. (Id. at
1200.) Six Sigma is a non-proprietary problem-solving methodology widely used by engineers.
(Id.)
During his entire tenure at PCC, Daugherty never entered into a non-compete agreement
with PCC. (Id. at 1198.) In 2012, Daugherty executed a Confidentiality and Innovation
and PageID# rather than any internal pagination.
Assignment Agreement (“Agreement”) with PCC. (Id. (Sitabkhan) at 979-80; Plaintiff’s Exhibit
1.) Section 2 of the Agreement provides, “During and after my Employment, (i) I will not
disclose any Company Proprietary Information outside the Company, and (ii) I will not use any
Company Proprietary Information except as necessary in connection with my work for the
Company.” (Id.; Doc. 1-1 at 30.) Section 3 of the Agreement further provides, “When my
Employment ends, or when the Company requests, I will destroy or deliver to the Company as
instructed, all materials furnished to me by the Company and all copies of materials containing
Company Proprietary Information.” (Id.) PCC required Daugherty’s replacement to sign a two-
year non-compete agreement. (Doc. 33 (Sitabkhan) at 1008-11; Defendants’ Exhibit F.)
In 2013, Daugherty was promoted to Engineering Manager at PCC Mentor. (Doc. 33
(Daugherty) at 1205.) As Engineering Manager, Daugherty oversaw the entire engineering
group at PCC Mentor. (Id.) He reviewed and approved SOPs documenting the IGT
manufacturing process. (Id. at 1205-08.) For the last 10 to 12 years, Daugherty reviewed and
approved SOPs written by engineers who reported to him. (Id. at 1205-06.) Daugherty
estimated there are over a hundred SOPs that govern the manufacturing process at PCC Mentor,
which range from two pages to fifty pages. (Id. at 1207-08.) Daugherty did not take any SOPs
when he left PCC. (Id. at 1208.) He also did not commit the information to memory. (Id.)
Two former PCC engineers who wrote SOPs under Daugherty’s supervision include
Rachel Harmon and Chris Miranda (Id. at 1205-07, 1255-57.) Both left PCC for Consolidated
Precision Products. (Id.) Both had access to PCC trade secrets while at PCC. (Id.) Both now
work with Daugherty at Consolidated Precision Products. (Id.) To Daugherty’s knowledge,
PCC did not attempt to stop either Harmon or Miranda from departing for Consolidated
Precision Products. (Id. at 1206-07.) He does not believe either of them has disclosed PCC’s
trade secrets to Consolidated Precision Products. (Id. at 1207.)
Around 2020, Daugherty was promoted to Director of Engineering at PCC. (Id.) In that
role, he continued to oversee engineering functions at PCC Mentor. (Id. at 1208-09.) He also
oversaw PCC’s IGT facility in Deer Creek, Oregon. (Id. at 1208-10.) Less than a year later,
PCC restructured. (Id. at 1210.) Daugherty returned to his prior role as Engineering Manager at
PCC Mentor. (Id.) He was disappointed with the lack of promotional opportunities at PCC. (Id.
at 1210-13.) Daugherty expressed his concerns to Salim Sitabkhan, PCC’s Vice President of
Operations. (Id. at 1212-13.)
As Engineering Manager, Daugherty was instrumental in developing the Raptor blade.
(Id. (Sitabkhan) at 993-95.) This is a larger IGT blade that is becoming popular among
customers. (Id.) Daugherty testified that Consolidated Precision Products has been
manufacturing large blades for years. (Id. (Daugherty) at 1246.) If he were tasked with building
a Raptor-like blade at Consolidated Precision Products, Daugherty testified he would not use
PCC trade secrets or confidential information to do so. (Id. at 1246-47.) Instead, he would rely
on Consolidated Precision Products’ own established processes, equipment, materials, and data.
(Id.)
On March 18, 2025, Daugherty received a text from Ryan Walker, Consolidated
Precision Products’ Airfoils Division President. (Id. at 1217-18.) Daugherty previously worked
with Walker at PCC. (Id.) They had maintained a friendship. (Id.) Over the next month,
Walker and Daugherty discussed the possibility of Daugherty joining Walker at Consolidated
Precision Products. (Id. at 1217-21.) While excited about the opportunity, Daugherty had
reservations. (Id.) He saw himself retiring from PCC. (Id. at 1218-19.) Daugherty was also
aware PCC may sue to prevent him from working at Consolidated Precision Products. (Id. at
1219-20.) Daugherty and his wife met with Consolidated Precision Products’ CEO, James
Stewart, to discuss their concerns. (Id. at 1221-23.)
At Walker’s suggestion, Daugherty contacted an attorney. (Id. at 1220.) A few days
later, on April 15, 2025, Daugherty received a text from Walker outlining the financial terms of
the offer from Consolidated Precision Products. (Id. at 1260-62; Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6.) That day,
Daugherty had a challenging quarterly review with PCC’s CEO and COO. (Doc. 33 (Daugherty)
at 1263-64.) After the review, Daugherty told his wife he was “done” with PCC. (Id.)
On April 17, 2025, Daugherty received an employment offer from Consolidated
Precision Products. (Id. at 1224.) He did not immediately accept the offer. (Id. at 1225.) Over
the next several days, Daugherty had numerous follow-up questions for Walker and
Consolidated Precision Products’ VP of Human Resources, Tony Hanson. (Id. at 1225-29.) In
the morning of April 21, 2025, Daugherty sent his resignation to PCC via email. (Id. at 1229-30;
Defendants’ Exhibit CC.) He was asked to leave the same day because he was leaving to work
for a competitor. (Doc. 33 (Daugherty) at 1229-30.) That morning Daugherty returned PCC’s
property, including a laptop and phone. (Id. at 1230-31.) He also worked with PCC’s IT
manager to ensure all photos of PCC equipment and premises were removed from his iCloud
account. (Id. at 1231-32.) This took several hours. (Id.)
Stewart and Walker separately advised Daugherty that Consolidated Precision Products
neither wanted nor needed PCC’s trade secrets. (Id. at 1220-23.) They reassured Daugherty his
employment was not contingent on disclosing PCC’s trade secrets or confidential information.
(Id.) On April 21, 2025, Daugherty signed his Consolidated Precision Products formal offer
letter. (Id. at 1236-37.) The offer letter was similarly reassuring. (Id. at 1237.)
In Daugherty’s last full year at PCC, his compensation totaled over $600,000. (Id.
(Sitabkhan) at 976; id. (Daugherty) at 1248.) Daugherty’s compensation structure at
Consolidated Precision Products features a lower base salary and bonus but includes a significant
potential equity amount upon a change in control of Consolidated Precision Products. (Id.
(Daugherty) at 1239-40.) Daugherty’s performance metrics are largely the same and include
yield, scrap rates, fostering culture, and mentoring young engineers. (Id. at 1240-41.) In his role
as Director of Engineering at Consolidated Precision Products, Daugherty mentors younger
engineers, helps solve engineering problems, improves manufacturing processes, and works with
vendors and customers. (Id. at 1222, 1241, 1254, 1265-68.)
2. Four Documents At Issue
After Daugherty resigned from PCC, PCC investigated Daugherty’s online and printing
activity. (Id. (Fancher) at 1080-81.) Leslie Fancher, a senior forensic analyst with PCC,
reviewed Daugherty’s external e-mail activity, printing activity, and USB activity. (Id. at 1081.)
Daugherty’s printing history revealed four documents queued for printing in the last two days of
his employment:
1. April 16, 2025, at 11:11 AM EST, spreadsheet titled “5-9000HL B2 CE Data
05192023.xlsx;”
2. April 16, 2025, at 2:34 PM EST, spreadsheet titled “47312 Cost Estimate.xlsx;”
3. April 17, 2025, at 9:38 AM EST, spreadsheet titled “47312 Cost Estimate.xlsx;”
and
4. April 17, 2025, at 9:48 AM EST, spreadsheet titled “Mentor EIS Scrap 2025 Q1
(version 1).xlsb.xlsx.2
2 Fancher and Vaughn confirmed these are the actual times the documents were queued for
printing. (Doc. 33 (Fancher) at 1084; id. (Vaughn) at 1131.)
(Id. at 1083-87; id. (Vaughn) at 1133-34; Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.) Documents two and three are
duplicates. (Doc. 33 (Fancher) at 1083-87.) These four documents consist of cost estimates for
two IGT blade models and a related scrap report. (Id. (AbouAbdallah) at 1175-83.) The four
documents contain confidential and trade secret information. (Id. (Polen) at 1037-43.)
3. PCC’s Witnesses
Leslie Fancher. On April 21, 2025, Fancher conducted the initial investigation of
Daugherty’s computer activity. (Id. (Fancher) at 1080-81.) Fancher found no unusual USB
activity and no unusual email activity. (Id. at 1092.) She also determined that Daugherty did not
upload any documents to an external site. (Id.) To investigate Daugherty’s printing activity, she
used a tool called DTEX, which is a third-party insider threat tool that looks at a user’s activity.
(Id. at 1081-82.) Fancher generated a DTEX log of Daugherty’s computer activity during the
last 60 days of his employment. (Id. at 1098.) She also ran a Sysmon report, which pulled
system information from Daugherty’s computer. (Id. at 1081-82, 1098.) The Sysmon report
went back 30 days. (Id.) Fancher generated a Sysmon log to show instances where Daugherty
initiated a print job. (Id. at 1083-85.) She searched for the “splow” command, which is the print
command. (Id. at 1084-85.) The four documents at issue appear on the Sysmon log for April 16,
2025, and April 17, 2025, with the “splow” path and an “Event ID 1.” (Id. at 1083-87.) Fancher
admitted the four documents at issue do not appear on the DTEX log. (Id. at 1103.) Her
explanation for the discrepancy between the Sysmon and DTEX logs is that they are two
different tools for pulling different sets of data. (Id. at 1107, 1109-10.) To her, both are
accurate. (Id.)
Fancher explained how print jobs can be initiated in different ways: hitting “Ctrl-P,” right
clicking and hitting print, or print preview. (Id. at 1087.) However, Fancher does not believe a
print preview occurred because the log did not show “Event ID 7,” which she believes is typical
for a print preview. (Id. at 1087-88, 1100.) Instead, the log showed “Event ID 1.” (Id.) Based
on the Sysmon log, Fancher determined that Daugherty initiated printing the four documents at
issue. (Id. at 1085-87, 1089.) Fancher did not analyze the physical printer. (Id. at 1111-12.)
She neither pulled nor reviewed any log of the printer’s activity. (Id.) Fancher could not
conclusively state whether the documents were printed. (Id. at 1112, 1120.) That said, she
believes the documents were printed based on her review of the logs. (Id. at 1112, 1121.)
James Vaughn. PCC retained James Vaughn, iDiscovery Solutions Digital Forensics
Examiner, to review Daugherty’s computer activity. (Id. (Vaughn) at 1124.) Vaughn has been a
digital forensics examiner for the last twenty-five years. (Id. at 1122.) Vaughn was designated
as an expert. (Id. at 1124.) As part of his investigation here, Vaughn generated an activity list of
Daugherty’s computer activity. (Id. at 1125-26.) He reviewed the same materials Fancher
generated during her investigation. (Id. at 1126-27.) This included the Sysmon log identifying
the four documents. (Id.) Vaughn discussed the different possibilities for print entries, including
a print, a failed or cancelled print, or a print preview. (Id. at 1129.) He also discussed the
possibility of a background process. (Id.) Vaughn ruled out the background process because the
logs show the four documents were opened contemporaneously with the print command being
initiated. (Id. at 1129, 1131-34.) He further explained the “splow” command must be initiated
through a print request. (Id. at 1129.) Vaughn did not believe there was a discrepancy between
the Sysmon and DTEX logs. (Id. at 1128.) He acknowledged the four documents do not appear
on the DTEX log. (Id. at 1139.) To Vaughn, they are two different systems that recorded
different things, and both are reliable. (Id. at 1128-30, 1135-36.)
Based on his assessment, Vaughn believes Daugherty either printed the documents or
initiated a print preview he then cancelled. (Id. at 1134-35.) Vaughn did not examine the printer
at issue. (Id. at 1136.) He could not say whether the printer was set up to record print jobs. (Id.
at 1137.) If the printer was set up for network printing, it is possible it could have recorded print
jobs. (Id. at 1137-38.) Vaughn agreed he could not know whether paper physically came out of
the printer. (Id. at 1139-40.)
Salim Sitabkhan. Sitabkhan, PCC’s Vice President of Operations, worked with
Daugherty for over fifteen years. (Id. (Sitabkhan) at 963.) Sitabkhan described Daugherty as a
talented engineer who was skilled at using data to solve engineering problems and improve
manufacturing processes. (Id.) Sitabkhan believed Daugherty was professional, honest, and
ethical. (Id. at 999.) He also testified that Daugherty obtained and developed trade secret and
confidential information for PCC. (Id. at 964, 974-76.)
Brent Polen. As PCC’s Director of Technology, Polen explained that engineering
improvements could be made to manufacturing processes without using a competitor’s trade
secrets. (Id. (Polen) at 1052-58.) By way of example, Polen recalled a project where he and
Daugherty were asked to resolve a scrap problem at another PCC facility. (Id.) Polen and
Daugherty collaborated with John Nichols. (Id.) Nichols previously worked at Consolidated
Precision Products as well as another competitor. (Id.) Nichols assisted them without disclosing
any competitor’s trade secret information. (Id.) PCC does not seek to obtain trade secret
information of its competitors. (Id.)
Polen was aware of and assisted with PCC’s review of Daugherty’s activities during
those final days of employment. (Id. at 1063.) In support of PCC’s Renewed Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Polen submitted a declaration. (Id.; Doc. 15-2; Defendants’ Exhibit C.)
In it, Polen declared in pertinent part:
I have reviewed the 30-day Access Print Log and 60-day Print Activity Log
attached to the Declaration of Leslie Fancher . . . .
The 60-day Print Activity Log reflects that Daugherty printed infrequently, and
that, prior to April 16, when he did print, it was (or at least appears to be) in
connection with work he was performing as part of his job. For example, the
printouts on April 14 and 15, 2025, were for a presentation that required an
overhead projector. . . .
There was no legitimate business reason for Daugherty to be printing [the] four
documents on the Wednesday and Thursday before his resignation, especially
when he was on vacation for the final two days of employment. Indeed,
Daugherty was on vacation on April 17 and 18, 2025, yet according to the
attached facilities access logs . . . , Daugherty came in during his vacation to
print these documents.
. . . I am not aware of Daugherty returning any of the documents that he printed
at the end of his employment or otherwise leaving them with PCC. . . .
Before signing this declaration, I was provided a full opportunity to carefully
review this declaration and freely make any corrections and additions of any
kind.
(Doc. 15-2 at 318-22; Defendants’ Ex. C at ¶¶ 4-5, 9-11.)
At the evidentiary hearing, Polen admitted his declaration contained inaccurate
information. (Doc. 33 (Polen) at 1070-75.) Daugherty was not on vacation on April 16. (Id. at
1072.) Daugherty was in the office on April 16, per his usual work schedule. Daugherty was in
the office on April 17 for a half day, leaving in the afternoon on April 17 for a scheduled
vacation.3 (Id.) When pressed, Polen’s explanation for this discrepancy was that he was told “in
passing” that Daugherty was on vacation. (Id. at 1073.) Polen acknowledged conducting no
3 Daugherty’s leave request for a half-day of vacation on April 17 was submitted approximately
two weeks in advance, so early April 2025. (Id. at 1075.)
separate inquiry or making any effort to clarify Daugherty’s work schedule prior to submitting
his declaration. (Id. at 1074.) Polen does not know if Daugherty printed any of the four
documents at issue. (Id. at 1075.)
4. Defendants’ Witnesses
Jonathan Edwards. Jonathan Edwards, a Senior Forensic Investigator with Avalon
Legal, reviewed Daugherty’s printing activity. (Id. (Edwards) at 1147.)4 He reviewed Fancher’s
logs as well as Vaughn’s activity list. (Id. at 1147-48, 1150.) Edwards explained that the
Sysmon tool monitors the computer operating system. (Id. at 1150.) An “Event ID 1” signifies a
new process is being initiated. (Id. at 1152.) Spooling is the first step of the printing process.
(Id. at 1155, 1166-67.) Edwards agreed with Vaughn that the spool process for the documents
on the Sysmon log could have been initiated through only one of three possibilities: printing; a
print preview; or a cancelled print. (Id. at 1156, 1166.) He also agreed it was unlikely the spool
process was initiated by a background process, meaning “Event ID 1” requires manual
implementation of a print action. (Id. at 1156.) In contrast to Fancher’s testimony, Edwards
stated an “Event ID 7” has absolutely nothing to do with printing or print preview. (Id. at 1157-
58.)
Edwards did not have an opinion whether the Sysmon or DTEX log was superior. (Id. at
1159.) Both logs provide useful information, but neither tool conclusively determines whether
documents were printed. (Id. at 1164-65.) To him, the inconsistency between the Sysmon and
DTEX logs should have prompted an examination of the actual printer. (Id. at 1159-60.)
Depending on how the printer was set up, the printer could have revealed whether these
4 Edwards has testified as an expert over fifty times in the last ten years. (Id. at 1145.)
documents were actually printed. (Id. at 1160.) He cannot say whether these documents were
printed on April 16 or April 17. (Id. at 1164-65.)
Chady AbouAbdallah. AbouAbdallah is the Sales Manager at PCC Mentor. Daugherty
managed AbouAbdallah for eight years before AbouAbdallah moved to the sales team. (Id.
(AbouAbdallah) at 1172.) He viewed Daugherty as a mentor. (Id.) AbouAbdallah described
Daugherty as professional, honest, and ethical. (Id.)
In the weeks leading up to Daugherty’s departure, AbouAbdallah asked Daugherty to
assist him in preparing for an upcoming long-term agreement (“LTA”) negotiation with
Siemens.5 (Id. at 1175-78.) The meeting with Siemens was scheduled for April 22, 2025. (Id.)
AbouAbdallah specifically requested Daugherty review cost estimates for IGT blades. (Id.) On
April 15, 2025, AbouAbdallah received cost estimates that were surprisingly high. (Id. at 1179-
81.) He tried to speak with Daugherty, but Daugherty was in a quarterly review. (Id.) Emails
concerning cost estimates were exchanged. (Id.) On April 15 and 16, 2025, AbouAbdallah,
Daugherty, and others emailed about the cost estimates. (Id.; see also Defendants’ Exhibit W.)
On the morning of April 17, 2025, AbouAbdallah, Daugherty, and others received the updated
cost estimates. (Doc. 33 (AbouAbdallah) at 1181-82; see also Defendants’ Exhibit X.)
AbouAbdallah explained that his request for Daughtery’s assistance necessitated Daugherty’s
review of cost estimate records. (Doc. 33 (AbouAbdallah) at 1182.)
Daugherty. Daugherty acknowledged viewing the four documents at issue to prepare
AbouAbdallah for the LTA negotiation with Siemens. (Id. (Daugherty) at 1233-35.) Daugherty
spoke with AbouAbdallah about cost estimates on April 16 or 17, 2025. (Id. at 1233-34.)
5 AbouAbdallah could not recall the exact date on which he asked Daugherty for assistance. (Id.
at 1183.)
Although there was only email traffic about the cost estimates for one of the blades, Daugherty
recalled reviewing the estimates for the other blade. (Id. at 1234-35.) He explained how
Siemens previously requested a quote for the other blade. (Id.) Daugherty wanted
AbouAbdallah to be prepared if Siemens restated its request for information about the other
blade during the upcoming meeting. (Id. at 1235.)
Daugherty did not believe he clicked either “print” or “print preview” for any of the four
documents at issue. (Id. at 1232-36, 1268-69.) He never retrieved printed copies of any of the
four documents from any printer. (Id.) He did not leave PCC with copies of these documents.
(Id.) He does not have any of these documents. (Id.)
As to PCC trade secrets and his continued employment at Consolidated Precision
Products, Daugherty explained his ability to work with, advise, and direct Consolidated Precision
Products’ employees in the development of its own IGT blades without disclosing PCC trade
secrets. (Id. at 1246-47, 1252-54, 1267-68.) Daugherty also explained that working with others
at Consolidated Precision Products would involve utilizing Consolidated Precision Products’
data, materials, and processes. (Id.) Daugherty has not and will not disclose any PCC trade
secrets to Consolidated Precision Products. (Id.)
5. Fancher’s Supplemental Declaration
Following the hearing, PCC submitted—without leave to do so—a supplemental
declaration from Fancher with additional information about Daugherty’s assigned printer. (See
Docs. 36, 36-1.) Defendants moved to strike the supplemental declaration (Doc. 37), and PCC
opposed (Doc. 38).
During the evidentiary hearing, the Court asked Vaughn to explain whether Daugherty’s
printer recorded completed print jobs, meaning would it reveal if the documents at issue were
printed. (Doc. 33 (Vaughn) at 1136-37.) Vaughn could not speak to that. (Id.) He did not
examine the printer. (Id. at 1137.) No witness did, at least not during the time period for doing
so. (Id.; Doc. 38 at 1323-24.) That appears to be the reason PCC now seeks to present Fancher’s
post-hearing declaration.
PCC investigated Daugherty’s printing activity before commencing this lawsuit. For
reasons known only to PCC, it did not examine the printer itself. (Doc. 38 at 1323-24.) The
Court provided PCC with ample time to conduct pre-hearing discovery. (See May 8, 2025
Minute Order.) PCC also submitted supplemental briefing in advance of the evidentiary hearing.
(See Doc. 28.) At the evidentiary hearing, Fancher testified. When PCC heard its expert witness
explain he did not examine the printer and did not know if it recorded print jobs, PCC could have
sought to recall Fancher on this point. It did not. According to PCC, it could not recall Fancher
because she had never examined the printer. (Doc. 38 at 1323-24.)
PCC’s effort to submit evidence about Daugherty’s printer comes too late. And PCC’s
offer to make Fancher available for a limited deposition misses the point. (Id. at 1324-25.) PCC
had sufficient time and opportunity to present evidence. That time passed. PCC has offered no
just reason for reopening the presentation of evidence in any form. PCC has simply provided no
explanation for why this information was not presented in pre-hearing submissions or during the
hearing itself. Allowing PCC to unilaterally extend the timeline for submitting evidence
undermines the adversarial process and disregards this Court’s scheduling order. For these
reasons, the Court will not consider Fancher’s supplemental declaration. Accordingly,
Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Supplemental Declaration of Leslie Fancher is DENIED as
moot.6
6 Even if the Court were to consider Fancher’s supplemental declaration, it does not change the
B. Procedural History
On May 6, 2025, PCC filed a Verified Complaint against Daugherty and Consolidated
Precision Products. (Doc. 1.) PCC asserts three claims: (1) Breach of Contract (against
Daugherty); (2) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in Violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.61, et
seq. (against all defendants); and (3) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in Violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1836, et seq. (against all defendants). (Id.)
Also on May 6, 2025, PCC filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary
Injunction, and Expedited Hearing. (Doc. 2.) PCC asserts it is entitled to injunctive relief on its
claim for threatened trade secret misappropriation and breach of the confidentiality provisions in
Daugherty’s Agreement. (Id. at 71-79.) The motion requests a temporary restraining order, and
then a preliminary injunction restraining Daugherty and Consolidated Precision Products from
disclosing PCC’s trade secrets, restraining Daugherty from providing services to Consolidated
Precision Products related to IGT casting, and restraining Daugherty from disclosing or
otherwise using PCC’s trade secrets in violation of his contractual obligations. (Id. at 65-66.)
On May 8, 2025, the Court conducted a telephonic status conference with the parties.
(See May 8, 2025 Minute Order.) The Court denied PCC’s request for a temporary restraining
order because PCC did not present sufficient evidence of a likelihood of success on the merits.
The Court determined an evidentiary hearing was necessary and set deadlines for expedited
discovery and supplemental briefing. (See id.)
On May 20, 2025, Defendants jointly opposed PCC’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Expedited Hearing. (Doc. 11.)
fact that PCC cannot show Daugherty printed the documents or removed them from PCC.
On June 2, 2025, PCC filed a Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, claiming
discovery revealed on Daugherty’s final days at PCC, he reviewed, printed, and stole PCC trade
secret information. (Doc. 15.) The Renewed Motion added a claim for actual trade secret
misappropriation in addition to the claims for threatened trade secret misappropriation and
breach of the Agreement. (Id. at 237-48.) On June 4, 2025, the Court conducted another
telephonic status conference with the parties to address the new allegations. (See June 4, 2025
Minute Order.) On June 16, 2025, Defendants jointly opposed PCC’s renewed motion. (Doc.
22.) The parties later filed supplemental briefs. (Docs. 28, 29.)
On July 31, 2025, the Court held an evidentiary hearing. (See Doc. 33.) On August 13,
2025, the parties separately filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (Docs. 34,
35.) The Court denied PCC’s request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 39), and PCC timely
appealed. On May 19, 2026, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded this Court’s Order,
directing that each of the preliminary injunction factors be weighed on a sliding scale and relief
granted “only if [the] plaintiff has made ‘a clear showing that [it] is entitled to such relief.’”
PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty, 176 F.4th 509, 513 (6th Cir. 2026) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008)). On June 10, 2026,
the mandate issued. (Doc. 48.)
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if the
movant carries [its] burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it.” Overstreet v.
Lexington-Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
When considering a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court must consider four
factors: (1) the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the risk of irreparable harm to
the movant without an injunction; (3) harm to others; and (4) the broader public interest. Winter,
555 U.S. at 20; A1 Diabetes & Med. Supply v. Azar, 937 F.3d 613, 618 (6th Cir. 2019); see also
Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Jurcevic, 867 F.3d 616, 622 (6th Cir. 2017); Certified
Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir. 2007).
These factors are “not prerequisites to be met.” S. Glazer’s Distribs. of Ohio, LLC v. Great
Lakes Brewing Co., 860 F.3d 844, 849 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning
Network, L.L.C., 511 F.3d at 542); see also Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 582 U.S.
571, 579-80, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 198 L. Ed. 2d 643 (2017) (per curiam) (the sliding-scale inquiry
turns “as much on the equities of a given case as the substance of the legal issues it presents”).
After considering each factor, the Court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the movant
has made “a clear showing that [it] is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (citation
omitted). While “no one factor is controlling, a finding that there is simply no likelihood of
success on the merits is usually fatal.” Gonzales v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625
(6th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Fetch! Pet Care, Inc. v. Atomic Pawz Inc., 170 F.4th
546, 558 (6th Cir. 2026). Failure to demonstrate irreparable injury is always fatal. D.T. v.
Sumner Cnty. Schs., 942 F.3d 324, 327 (6th Cir. 2019).
A “court’s resolution of issues in a preliminary injunction order is never binding on a
case’s underlying merits.” Mktg. Displays Int’l v. Shaw, 93 F.4th 967, 971-72 (6th Cir. 2024).
“Findings made in the course of deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction . . . generally
do not establish the law of the case . . . .” Grudzinski v. Staren, 87 F. App’x 508, 512 (6th Cir.
2004); see also Harris v. Fitchville Twp. Trs., 154 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1186-87 (N.D. Ohio 2001)
(“The Sixth Circuit has held that determinations made in the process of deciding a motion for
preliminary injunction are not binding in a resolution on the merits.”) (citation omitted).
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
PCC alleges actual misappropriation and threatened misappropriation of PCC’s trade
secrets in violation of the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“OUTSA”) and the Defend Trade
Secrets Act (“DTSA”). (Doc. 15 at 237.) The requirements for establishing misappropriation of
trade secrets are largely the same under Ohio and federal law, so the Court will analyze these
claims together in considering likelihood of success on the merits. See James B. Oswald Co. v.
Neate, 98 F.4th 666, 675 (6th Cir. 2024) (considering OUTSA and DTSA claim together); see
also Union Home Mortg. Corp. v. Fratelli, No. 1:23-CV-857, 2025 WL 639315, at *4, 2025 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 35673 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2025) (citations omitted).
To prevail on a misappropriation of trade secrets claim under Ohio law, a plaintiff must
prove: “(1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) acquisition of the trade secret as the result of a
confidential relationship or through improper means; and (3) an unauthorized use of the trade
secret.” Novus Grp., LLC v. Prudential Fin., Inc., 74 F.4th 424, 427-28 (6th Cir. 2023) (citing
Tomaydo-Tomahhdo L.L.C. v. Vozary, 82 N.E.3d 1180, 1184 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) and Ohio
Rev. Code § 1333.61(B)(1)). “To prevail on a claim under the DTSA, a plaintiff must show: (1)
the existence of a protectable trade secret; (2) misappropriation of the trade secret by the
defendant; and (3) that the trade secret is related to a product or service used in interstate
commerce.” Endless River Techs. LLC v. Trans Union LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00936, 2022 WL
314598, at *9, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19217 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2022); 18 U.S.C. § 1836.
1. Trade Secret
A “trade secret” is information that (1) “derives independent economic value . . . from not
being generally known to . . . other persons” and (2) “is the subject of efforts that are reasonable
under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.61(D); 18 U.S.C.
§ 1839(3).
For purposes of evaluating the instant motions, PCC has demonstrated the existence of a
protectable trade secret. The parties acknowledge PCC’s SOPs and its IGT manufacturing
process contain trade secrets. (Doc. 33 (Sitabkhan) at 964-74; id. (Polen) at 1033, 1037-38; id.
(Daugherty) at 1202, 1249-51; Doc. 34 at 1281, 1283; Doc. 35 at 1298.) The parties also
acknowledge the four documents queued for printing contain trade secrets. (Doc. 33 (Polen) at
1037-43; id. (Daugherty) at 1269; Doc. 34 at 1286-87; Doc. 35 at 1301-02, 1305.) PCC’s
pricing information is also an undisputed trade secret. (Doc. 33 (Sitabkhan) at 974; id. (Polen) at
1037-38; id. (Daugherty) at 1251; Doc. 35 at 1298.)
2. Misappropriation or Acquisition
PCC must show its trade secrets were obtained (by way of a relationship or improper
means) and used without authorization. See Handel’s Enters., Inc. v. Schulenburg, 765 F. App’x
117, 122 (6th Cir. 2019). PCC asserts it is likely to prevail on its claim for actual trade secret
misappropriation because Daugherty—in his final days of employment—likely printed and kept
four documents containing trade secrets. (See Doc. 35 at 1304.)
PCC relies heavily on printing logs. Fancher generated a Sysmon log to show instances
where Daugherty initiated a print job. (Doc. 33 (Fancher) at 1081-85.) The four documents at
issue appear on the Sysmon log for April 16, 2025, and April 17, 2025. (Id. at 1083-87.) Based
on the Sysmon log, Fancher believes Daugherty initiated printing the four documents at issue.
(Id. at 1085-87, 1089, 1112, 1121.) Vaughn also reviewed Daugherty’s printing activity. (Id.
(Vaughn) at 1125-27.) He believes Daugherty either printed the documents or did a print
preview and then cancelled it. (Id. at 1134-35.) Neither Fancher nor Vaughn could say whether
the documents were actually printed, let alone removed from PCC’s offices. (Id. (Fancher) at
1112, 1120; id. (Vaughn) at 1139-40.) While credible as witnesses, their testimony is limited
and does little more than direct the Court to possibilities.
Notwithstanding its inability to prove the documents were printed or removed from
PCC’s offices, PCC asserts that “Daugherty had no legitimate business reason for accessing,
much less printing, these documents” when he did. (Doc. 35 at 1302; Doc. 33 (Polen) at 1044,
1065, 1069; id. (AbouAbdallah) at 1187-92.) To PCC, these documents were typically viewed
and transferred electronically—they were not printed. (Doc. 33 (Polen) at 1044, 1065, 1069.)
The simple act of initiating a print command establishes likely misappropriation, PCC contends.
But AbouAbdallah’s credible testimony contradicts this assertion. AbouAbdallah sought
Daugherty’s support on a project that necessitated Daugherty’s review of these documents. (Id.
(AbouAbdallah) at 1175-78.) To be sure, PCC asserts Daugherty did not provide additional
support to AbouAbdallah after Daugherty allegedly printed the documents. (Id. at 1187-92.)
But this argument carries little weight when reviewing the timeline of events. AbouAbdallah’s
presentation was set for April 22, 2025. (Id. at 1175-78.) He was speaking with and seeking
help from Daugherty up until the afternoon of April 17, 2025, when Daugherty left for vacation.
(Id. at 1179-82.) Daugherty credibly explained his decision to leave PCC was made the morning
of April 21, 2025, and he communicated that decision to PCC the same day. (Id. (Daugherty) at
1229, 1259.) Daugherty did not provide additional support after April 17 because he was not in
the office on April 18, and he promptly notified PCC of his resignation on April 21. (Id. at 1224-
29, 1259.)
PCC also relies on Polen. Polen testified to inspecting Daugherty’s office after
Daugherty’s departure and being unable to locate the four documents at issue. (Id. (Polen) at
1039, 1043; Defendants’ Exhibit C at ¶ 10.) To PCC, the absence of these four documents
establishes Daugherty took them to Consolidated Precision Products. The Court cannot make the
inferential leap PCC urges. The absence of these documents may very well be due to the fact
they were not printed on April 16 or April 17.
Moreover, the Court cannot rely on Polen’s testimony. Polen submitted a declaration to
the Court stating that Daugherty was in PCC’s offices to print records when Daugherty was
supposed to be on vacation. (Doc. 33 (Polen) at 1070-75; Defendants’ Exhibit C at ¶ 9.) To
PCC, this establishes nefarious intent. But Polen now admits he did nothing more than rely on a
colleague’s “passing” statement when he attested to Daugherty’s vacation schedule as fact.
(Doc. 33 (Polen) at 1070-75.) He also acknowledged Daugherty’s presence in PCC’s offices on
April 16 and half the day on April 17 was both known to PCC and consistent with Daugherty’s
work schedule. (Id.)
Not surprisingly, Defendants contend PCC failed to demonstrate misappropriation,
largely because there is no actual proof of misappropriation and because Daugherty was a
credible witness. Daugherty denied printing the records, removing the records, and disclosing
PCC’s trade secrets or confidential information. (Id. (Daugherty) at 1232-36, 1268-69.)
The Court finds Daugherty to be a credible witness on all of these points. First, the Court
observed the manner in which Daugherty answered questions. His responses were clear, patient,
and detailed. He was not evasive. He unequivocally stated he could work for Consolidated
Precision Products while maintaining his ethical and legal obligations to PCC. (Id. at 1246-47,
1252-54, 1267-68.) Daugherty’s testimony was corroborated by PCC’s witnesses. Daugherty is
widely respected by his peers. (Id. (Sitabkhan) at 999; id. (AbouAbdallah) at 1172.) Sitabkhan
and AbouAbdallah firmly believe Daugherty is ethical. (Id.) Daugherty’s explanation for
viewing the documents at issue was corroborated by AbouAbdallah’s testimony and the emails
discussing the cost estimate concerns. (Id. (AbouAbdallah) at 1175-78, 1181-82; Defendants’
Exhibit W; Defendants’ Exhibit X.) PCC has not established that any of the four documents at
issue were printed, let alone removed from PCC’s offices. It has also not established that
Daugherty disclosed any of its trade secrets.
3. Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine
Without evidence of actual misappropriation, PCC relies on the “inevitable disclosure
doctrine” to support its claim for threatened misappropriation. See Procter & Gamble Co. v.
Stoneham, 140 Ohio App.3d 260, 747 N.E.2d 268, 278-79 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). Under the
inevitable disclosure doctrine, “a threat of harm warranting injunctive relief can be shown by
facts establishing that an employee with detailed and comprehensive knowledge of an
employer’s trade secrets . . . has begun employment with a competitor . . . in a position that is
substantially similar . . . .” Id. at 279.
The parties present vastly different positions on the applicability of the inevitable
disclosure doctrine. PCC asserts the doctrine can be applied in any situation where a former
employee with detailed knowledge of trade secrets seeks a similar position with a competitor.
(See Doc. 35 at 1306.) Defendants assert something different. (See Doc. 34 at 1291.) To them,
the case law reveals courts considering the inevitable disclosure doctrine first look to whether
there is a non-compete agreement. Absent a non-compete agreement, courts require proof of
“significant wrongdoing” or evidence that employee did not act “above board.” (Id. (citation
omitted).)
The Court has reviewed inevitable disclosure doctrine case law in Ohio and the Sixth
Circuit. Ohio courts generally do not apply the inevitable disclosure doctrine without a valid
non-compete agreement. See Hydrofarm, Inc. v. Orendorff, 180 Ohio App.3d 339, 905 N.E.2d
658, 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008); SkfUSA, Inc. v. Zarwasch-Weiss, No. 10-cv-1548, 2011 WL
13362617, at *31 n.39, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167027 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 3, 2011). District courts
in this circuit take a slightly different approach. A review of district court opinions reveals the
application of the inevitable disclosure doctrine in the absence of a valid non-compete agreement
only when there is evidence of dishonesty, bad faith, nefarious conduct, or an intent to
misappropriate. See A&P Tech., Inc. v. Lariviere, No. 17-cv-534, 2017 WL 6606961, at *5,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211822 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 27, 2017); compare Devicor Med. Prods., Inc.
V. Reed, No. 11-cv-645, 2013 WL 1315037, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45730 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 29,
2013) (denying preliminary injunction where no evidence of improper solicitation or attempt to
divert business) and Cleverland Holdings, LLC v. Mahan, No. 23-cv-01571, 2023 WL 8039513,
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207538 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2023), R&R adopted, 2023 WL 8019083,
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206994 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2023) (denying injunctive relief where
plaintiff failed to put forth either direct or circumstantial evidence of misappropriation of any
asset), with Union Home Mortg. Corp., 2025 WL 639315 (granting injunctive relief where
plaintiff provided evidence defendant accessed plaintiff’s database, compiled confidential
information from the database, and uploaded it to his personal DropBox account), Polymet Corp.
v. Newman, No. 16-cv-734, 2016 WL 4449641, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113000 (S.D. Ohio Aug.
24, 2016) (granting injunctive relief where there was heavy circumstantial evidence defendant
intended to misappropriate plaintiff’s trade secrets), and Goken Am., LLC v. Bandepalya, No. 14-
cv-1445, 2014 WL 6673830, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164370 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 24, 2014)
(granting injunction where former employee copied files onto external hard drive).
To the extent PCC relies on Nucor Corp. v. Bell, No. 06-CV-02972, 2008 WL 9894350,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119952 (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2008), that reliance is misplaced. While Nucor
applied the inevitable disclosure doctrine in the absence of a non-compete agreement, there was
evidence the former employee physically removed records after deciding to leave the company’s
employment. 2008 WL 9894350, at *15-20. There was also evidence of “bad faith” because the
former employee carelessly discarded a thumb-drive containing the company’s trade secrets. Id.
The Court adopts the three-step inquiry applied by other district courts in this circuit.
Step one: Does the employee to be enjoined have “detailed and comprehensive knowledge of an
employer’s trade secrets and confidential information?” Procter & Gamble Co., 747 N.E.2d at
279. If yes, step two: Was there a valid non-compete agreement? If not, step three: Has the
moving party presented evidence of dishonesty, bad faith, nefarious conduct, or an intent to
misappropriate? See A&P Tech., Inc., 2017 WL 6606961, at *5.
Under step one, PCC directs the Court to Daugherty’s extensive knowledge of PCC’s
IGT manufacturing process. To PCC, Daugherty will not be able to work in IGT casting for
Consolidated Precision Products without disclosing PCC trade secret information. Consolidated
Precision Products does not dispute that Daugherty is knowledgeable about IGT casting.
Instead, they highlight their own consistent statements to Daugherty that he is not to disclose any
of PCC’s trade secrets. The Court finds Daugherty had and may still recall confidential and
trade secret information.
Moving to step two, the parties all acknowledge that Daugherty and PCC never entered
into a non-compete agreement. So the Court moves to step three and considers whether there is
evidence of dishonesty, bad faith, nefarious conduct, or an intent to misappropriate. In short, the
answer is no.
Daugherty had a legitimate business reason to view the four documents at issue. There is
no evidence those documents were printed in the days leading up to Daugherty’s departure from
PCC. At best, there is evidence he could have printed them, but given the legitimate reason
Daugherty had for viewing the records, the possibility of printing is insufficient to demonstrate
bad faith, nefarious conduct, or an intent to misappropriate PCC’s information.
Similarly, there is no evidence Daugherty took those records, or any other records, to
Consolidated Precision Products. And Polen’s claim that Daugherty came into PCC’s offices
while on vacation to print these records has been disproven. Instead, what has been established
is that PCC’s employees, including Sitabkhan and AbouAbdallah, believe Daugherty to be
honest and ethical. For his part, Daugherty explained he could support Consolidated Precision
Product’s IGT casting efforts without relying on PCC trade secrets, namely because he would be
using Consolidated Precision Product’s materials, processes, and data. Daugherty credibly stated
he can and will maintain his own ethical standards and comply with his legal obligations to PCC.
4. Breach of Contract
“An Ohio breach of contract claim has four elements: the existence of a contract,
performance by the plaintiff, breach by the defendant, and damage or loss to the plaintiff.” New
Lansing Gardens Hous. Ltd. P’ship v. Columbus Metro. Hous. Auth., 46 F.4th 514, 520 (6th Cir.
2022) (quotations and citations omitted).
For the reasons discussed above, PCC has not demonstrated a likelihood that Daugherty
breached sections 2 or 3 of the Agreement, or that his employment with Consolidated Precision
Products would necessarily force him to breach his agreement. PCC has not presented evidence
Daugherty stole PCC’s trade secret information in his final days of employment nor that he
disclosed trade secrets to Consolidated Precision Products. PCC also has not shown an imminent
threat of disclosure of its trade secrets.
5. Finding as to Likelihood of Success on the Merits
“[T]he likelihood of success on the merits factor is ‘generally the most important factor
of a preliminary injunction analysis.’” Shepler’s Inc. v. City of Mackinac Island, No. 25-1668,
2026 WL 700482, at *3, 2026 US App LEXIS 7560 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2026) (quoting Higuchi
Int’l Corp. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 103 F.4th 400, 409 (6th Cir. 2024)); see also S. Glazer’s
Distribs., 860 F.3d at 849 (“[A] preliminary injunction issued where there is simply no
likelihood of success on the merits must be reversed.”) (citations and quotations omitted). For
these reasons, PCC has not demonstrated its likelihood of success on the merits. “When one
factor is dispositive, a district court need not consider the others.” D.T., 942 F.3d at 327.
Notwithstanding, the Court will assess the three remaining factors.
C. Irreparable Injury
This factor “is indispensable: [i]f the plaintiff isn’t facing imminent and irreparable
injury, there’s no need to grant relief now as opposed to at the end of the lawsuit.” Id. (citation
omitted). Irreparable injury “must be both certain and immediate, not speculative or theoretical.”
Id. An injury is irreparable if it cannot be fully compensated by monetary damages. Overstreet,
305 F.3d at 578.
PCC argues that courts routinely find irreparable injury in threatened trade secret
misappropriation cases. (See Doc. 35 at 1310.) To be sure, the Sixth Circuit has recognized the
speculative nature of trade secret injuries may make such injuries irreparable. Fetch!, 170 F.4th
at 558. Nevertheless, the Court must still consider the evidence before it to ascertain whether
“‘irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.’” Id. (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at
22 (emphasis in original).)
Such a showing has not been made here, largely because PCC’s own employees attested
to Daugherty’s character and ethical nature. (Doc. 33 (Sitabkhan) at 999; id. (AbouAbdallah) at
1172.) Such testimony undercuts the argument that any threat of trade secret disclosures is
imminent. Moreover, Daugherty credibly testified he would not need to rely on PCC’s trade
secret information to perform IGT work at Consolidated Precision Products because
Consolidated Precision Products’ own processes, equipment, materials, and data would
necessarily be the foundation for his decision-making processes. (Id. (Daugherty) at 1246-47.)
And as a final but notable point, other high-level engineers have transferred between PCC and
Consolidated Precision Products with no apparent harm to PCC after such employees accepted
positions at Consolidated Precision Products. (Id. (Daugherty) at 1205-07, 1255-57; id. (Polen)
at 1052-58.)
At best, PCC has demonstrated the possibility of an irreparable injury. This is not
sufficient. Garlock, Inc. v. United Seal, Inc., 404 F.2d 256, 257 (6th Cir. 1968).7
D. Harm to Others
In evaluating this factor, the Court must consider “‘whether the issuance of the injunction
would cause substantial harm to others.’” Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C.,
511 F.3d at 550-51 (quoting Tumblebus Inc. v. Cranmer, 399 F.3d 754, 760 (6th Cir. 2005)).
More specifically, the Court must assess “whether the preliminary injunction would harm the
party enjoined or others, and if so, whether such harm outweighs any irreparable harm
established by the party seeking the injunction.” Extracorporeal All., L.L.C. v. Rosteck, 285 F.
Supp. 2d 1028, 1045 (N.D. Ohio 2003), aff’d, 113 F. App’x 98 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing In re
DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1229 (6th Cir. 1985)).
7 Even if this factor weighed in PCC’s favor, the Court does not find that all factors, when taken
together, clearly show PCC is entitled to injunctive relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22-24; D.T.,
942 F.3d at 326-27.
PCC urges that its requested injunction “will result in minimal (if any) harm to
Defendants” because Daugherty is not currently working in IGT casting and has enough work to
do at other Consolidated Precision Products facilities. (See Doc. 35 at 1311.) To Defendants, an
injunction preventing Daugherty from working on IGT casting would harm Daugherty’s
livelihood, his financial stability, his professional reputation, and disrupt Consolidated Precision
Products’ business operations. (See Doc. 34 at 1293.) On this point, it appears that few will feel
the effect of the requested injunction, and those who would be constrained by it can pursue
Consolidate Precision Products’ many other endeavors or remain assigned to IGT while this
matter is resolved.
E. Public Interest
Finally, the public interest will not be served by granting PCC’s requested injunctive
relief. Restraining Daugherty from directly or indirectly providing IGT casting services to
Consolidated Precision Products would give PCC the benefit of a non-compete agreement it did
not negotiate for and for which Daugherty was not compensated. To do so “would be endorsing
the proposition that any employee with specialized knowledge that agreed not to disclose that
knowledge can be forbidden from working for a direct competitor indefinitely. Such a
proposition would undermine the ‘strong public interest in fair and free competition.’” A&P
Tech., Inc., 2017 WL 6606961, at *7 (quoting Bailey v. Chattem, Inc., 684 F.2d 386, 391 (6th
Cir. 1982)).
III. CONCLUSION
To grant injunctive relief, the Court must find that all four factors, taken together, clearly
weigh in favor of such relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22-24; Daugherty, 176 F.4th at 513-15.
Because PCC has not made the requisite showing, preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: June 17, 2026 if
BRIDGET MEEH RENNAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE