nonetheless, the Court is not persuaded—on this record—that the breach of loyalty claim is preempted. See Marks, 948 F.Supp. at 1474 (“Preemption is only appropriate where other claims are no more than a restatement of the same operative facts which would plainly and exclusively spell out only trade secret misappropriation.”; - internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nonetheless, the Court finds the evidence is insufficient to show that any trade secrets were taken— physically—by Defendants, other than the document containing the list of USI accounts sold taken by Mr. McQuate. The fact that this information—because it is now disseminated publicly in this case—is no longer a trade secret, does not negate a finding that a breach of loyalty occurred. See Marks, 948 F.Supp. at 1474 (<HOLDING>). D. Misappropriation, of Trade Secrets—Count
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 recognizing that even if a plaintiff claims certain information constitutes trade secrets its claim may not depend on that determination holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages holding that included among trade secrets employee may not appropriate from employer is certain information such as lists of customers