be difficult except by improper means). Yet, “[sjecrecy is a relative term. The information may be known to several persons and yet still be secret if third parties would be willing to pay for a breach of trust in order to ascertain it.” Taco Cabana Int’l, 932 F.2d at 1125 (quoting A.H. Emery Co. v. Marcan Products Corp., 268 F.Supp. 289, 299 (S.D.N.Y.1967)). Courts have held that, even where a plaintiff voluntarily discloses the trade secret without the benefit of a confidentiality agreement, the requisite secrecy is retained if the “disclosure occurs in a context that would not ordinarily occasion public exposure, and in a manner that does not carelessly exceed the imperatives of a beneficial transaction.” Taco Cabana Int’l, 932 F.2d at 1124; see also Phillips, 20 F.3d at 631-32 (<HOLDING>); Metallurgical Industries Inc. v. Fourtek,
holding that disclosure of trade secret without protection of express confidentiality agreement was not fatal to trade secret protection where disclosure occurred during sale negotiation holding that the burden of establishing the true existence of a trade secret and its value to the owner remains on the claimant who must submit evidence relating to the six factors that texas law considers for trade secret status 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 the lack of a confidentiality agreement does not necessarily defeat an argument that information is a trade secret because where an employee acquires during the course of his employment a special technique or process developed by his employer he is under a duty to keep it confidential 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