the information). Viewing the record in plaintiffs favor for purposes of summary judgment only, the January 1995 non-disclosure agreement signed by Cowen covered the source code for the Harvard 44 pump. As averred by Gargano, all employees with access to Old Harvard’s technology, including source code, had to sign confidential non-disclosure agreements. Although Old Harvard disclosed the source code to three customers, it required them to execute confidentiality agreements. The information was not placed entirely within the public domain. The existence of the non-disclosure agreements, at a minimum, put Old Harvard employees, including Cowen, on notice that the source code involved secret information. See, e.g., USM Corporation v. Marson Fastener Corporation, 393 N.E.2d at 901 (<HOLDING>); Eastern Marble Products Corporation v. Roman
holding that a customer list may be protectable as a trade secret if it is secret and the court examines and determines if it is protectable based on three factors 1 what steps if any an employer has taken to maintain the confidentiality of a customer list 2 whether a departing employee acknowledges that the customer list is confidential and 3 whether the content of the list is readily ascertainable holding that contact list based on inter alia information that was publicly available did not qualify as trade secret holding that the plaintiffs customer list was not a trade secret in part because there was no evidence that by the nature of the plaintiffs business extraordinary effort was involved in compiling the customer list recognizing that nondisclosure agreements did not have to list the secret information in order to put employees on notice holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that its customer list was a trade secret because the plaintiff presented evidence that the list took ten years and great expense to the company to develop