have adopted a presumption that the disclosure of a trade secret constitutes an irreparable harm that justifies an injunction. The presumption of irreparable harm is based upon the fact that the disclosure of a trade secret has the potential to. destroy the legal protections afforded to a trade secret if it becomes generally known. See 4 Rosmrt M. Mincrim & Eric E. Bensen, Minazrim on Traps § 15.02[1][c] (20183) (noting that "unprotected disclosure of a trade secret destroys the secret"). Because "of the difficulties involved in valuing the consequences of the destruction of a trade secret," id., some courts have adopted a presumption that the harm associated with an unauthorized disclosure is irreparable, see FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Indus. Co., 730 F.2d 61, 63 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Kendall Holdings, Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics
holding that the loss of money from a bank account does not constitute irreparable harm because that loss can be compensat ed by money damages recognizing that customer lists may be protectable trade secrets holding that the logs of trade secrets is usually considered an irreparable harm that cannot be measured in money damages alterations in original internal quotation marks omitted 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 loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages