trade secrets described therein, to Yeti by Molly. Deckers contends that Strong therefore owned no trade secrets and could not have suffered any damages from Deckers’ misappropriation. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding that Deckers misappropriated trade secrets owned by Strong. Strong testified that she revealed to Link the identity of many of her suppliers. For example, she told Link that she used Malden Mills for Polar-Tec fleece material and revealed the precise type of Polar-Tec that she preferred. She never transferred this secretly maintained list of suppliers to Yeti by Molly. The identity of a supplier can be a trade secret. See Mont.Code Ann. § 30-14-402(4); see also Ackerman v. Kimball Int’l Inc., 634 N.E.2d 778, 783 (Ct.App.Ind. 1994) (<HOLDING>) rev’d on other grounds 652 N.E.2d 507
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 recognizing that customer lists may be protectable trade secrets holding that the inevitable disclosure theory can be applied under north carolina law where 1 injunction is limited to protecting specifically defined trade secrets and 2 the trade secret is clearly identified and of significant value holding that included among trade secrets employee may not appropriate from employer is certain information such as lists of customers holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages