# U.S. Land Services, Inc. v. U.S. Surveyor, Inc.

> Indiana Court of Appeals · April 26, 2005 · 826 N.E.2d 49

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725175

## Case

- **Full name:** U.S. LAND SERVICES, INC., Allen Harding and Stacey Wyber, Appellants-Defendants, v. U.S. SURVEYOR, INC., Appellee-Plaintiff
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 26, 2005
- **Citations:** 826 N.E.2d 49; 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1405; 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 666; 2005 WL 949961
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Friedlander
- **Judges:** Sharpnack, Friedlander, Baker
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725175

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that information in a surveyor database, some of which was “readily available over the Internet and through other sources in the public domain,” and some “such as the surveyor ratings, client histories, and prospect response ratings, [which] are not readily available,”…
- noting that neither party “focuses on the purpose of a preliminary injunction” and partially reversing a trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a trade secrets case

## Opinion text

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority in every respect, but write briefly to address the point raised by my colleague in dissent. We all agree the trial court was correct in concluding that under the Trade Secrets Act, Surveyor’s surveyor database is a trade secret that appellants should be preliminarily enjoined from using. We all *70 also agree that the preliminary injunction was overbroad, at least with respect to its prohibition against Land Services operating a survey management and coordination business, and against Harding and Wyber working for Land Services while it conducts such business. The only point of disagreement is whether the customer database obtained from Surveyor’s is a trade secret, and therefore a proper subject of the preliminary injunction. I agree that it is.
The dissent is persuaded otherwise upon the conclusion that the entries on that list are attainable through other sources—that is, through sources other than Surveyor’s customer database. That is undeniably so, but does not settle the matter. Although all of the names on the customer database would presumably appear on one list or another through internet searches, trade sources, etc., there is no evidence that this precise compilation of contacts would result from a single search or could be culled from a single source. Thus, this particular compilation of potential customers is unique, and unquestionably the product, at least in part, of not-insubstantial business efforts on Surveyor’s part. This alone qualifies it as a proper subject of preliminary injunction. Moreover, I note there is evidence that the potential customers on the list may be evaluated and rated on several different scales, utilizing software developed for Surveyor’s. Presumably, with the aid of such software, the master list may be broken down into sublists, employing scales that measure and evaluate data obtained by Surveyor’s in the course of its business operations. Again, I believe this arguably qualifies as a trade secret eligible for injunctive relief.
Finally, I must acknowledge that the sheer size of the customer list gave me pause in deciding whether the injunction was overbroad in this respect. As we note in the majority opinion, however, the list does not comprise the list of all potential customers in the area. In any event, we merely affirm here the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Assuming a permanent injunction will be sought, the appellants will have the opportunity at that time to more fully litigate the question of whether restricting them from contacting customers on Surveyor’s customer database effectively prevents them from doing business in this field altogether. I reiterate my conclusion that there is enough before us to affirm the preliminary injunction in that respect.
Subject to these explanatory comments, I fully concur in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725175. Public record. Not legal advice.