about the regions and locations where Banzai products are “more easily sold” (id. at 7); (6) Swanel’s pricing structure and costs of producing its products (id. at 7); and (7) the identity of Swanel’s raw materials suppliers and the pricing arrangements Swanel had with each (id. at 4). The court will address each piece of information in turn. 1. Swanel’s List of Distributors Indiana courts have recognized that under certain circumstances, a customer list can constitute a protectable trade secret under the IUTSA. See e.g., Ackerman v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 634 N.E.2d 778, 782-85 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), aff'd, 652 N.E.2d 507 (Ind.1995) (customer lists, supplier lists, and pricing information may be trade secrets); Michels v. Dyna-Kote Indus., Inc., 497 N.E.2d 586, 588-89 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>); Kozuch v. CRA-MAR Video Ctr., Inc., 478
recognizing that even if a plaintiff claims certain information constitutes trade secrets its claim may not depend on that determination recognizing that customer lists may be protectable trade secrets holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages 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 holding that included among trade secrets employee may not appropriate from employer is certain information such as lists of customers