there is no risk to the Guardian name if Whit Davis continues to install fiberglass insulation under its own name. Guardian also cannot show that its covenant is necessary to protect it from unfair competition by Whit Davis. To prove that there is a risk of unfair competition, Guardian must show that it has entrusted to Whit Davis a trade secret, permitted close contact with Guardian customers, or provided some other confidential information that would give Whit Davis an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace. See St. Clair Medical, 715 N.W.2d at 919 (finding a risk of unfair competition where an employer sought to retain customers that were brought into the business by virtue of advertising dollars or marketing funds spent by the employer); Woodward, 240 N.W.2d at 721 (<HOLDING>). As proof of the confidential information
holding that an employee who by virtue of his employment was authorized to access his employers computers became without authorization when he became an agent for the defendant one of his employers competitors to whom he sent emails containing his employers trade secrets and other proprietary information recognizing a legitimate need to protect an employee from disclosing an employers trade secrets or other confidential information to a competitor holding that included among trade secrets employee may not appropriate from employer is certain information such as lists of customers holding that foia exemption 4 did not apply because agency did not meet burden of showing that desired information consisted of trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that are privileged or confidential holding that supplier lists can be trade secrets under indianas uniform trade secrets act which uses the same definition of a trade secret as montana