employee. See Stampede Tool Warehouse, 209 Ill.Dec. 281, 651 N.E.2d at 217 (considering confidentiality agreements to be secrecy efforts weighing in favor of trade secret determi nation). In sum, the court concludes that the information France knew about Barnes and about the employees JSG considered placing with Barnes is protected because it “could give [her] an unfair competitive advantage in placing workers with [JSG’s] clients.” The Agency, Inc., 298 Ill.Dec. 283, 839 N.E.2d at 617. The court recognizes that Illinois courts have not found customer lists to be trade secrets where an employee contacts or solicits customers of a former employer and the services are common and customers’ information is publicly available. See, e.g., Sys. Dev. Servs., 329 Ill.Dec. 744, 907 N.E.2d at 75 (<HOLDING>); Carbonic Fire Extinguishers v. Heath, 190
holding that the district court erred in refusing to grant the secret services fedrcivp 60b motion to rehear arguments about the applicability of foia exemptions 7c and 7d in light of the secret services belatedly proffered proof of a promise of confidentiality noting that the case was not the ordinary one since it involves not only the interests of the secret service but that of a third party whose identity and information are expressly protected by foia holding that contact list based on inter alia information that was publicly available did not qualify as trade secret holding that a suspended attorney should not be permitted to have contact with clients holding contact information of potential computer network services clients was not a trade secret because all businesses are now potential customers of computer network services and their contact information is publicly available holding customer list and pricing information of fire extinguisher business not a trade secret where service was commonly used so potential clients could be easily recognized and market was well established