Co. v. Coastal Corp., 899 F.2d 1458, 1462. The first two factors that a customer list is a trade secret are present in this case. First, the district court found, in reference to customer trade lists and other items, that Guy Carpenter had “taken reasonable precautions to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of such information.” Second, Provenzale acknowledged the customer lists were confidential when he executed the 1993 Agreement. In regard to the third factor, the district court implicitly found the customer lists were readily ascertainable. We agree. Evidence in the record indicates participants in the reinsurance market freely disclose the identity of their reinsurance broker and the nature of the reinsurance products they regularly consume. See Numed, 724 S.W.2d at 435 (<HOLDING>). We also note that Provenzale’s list of
holding former employee could properly use recollection of customer information where he did not otherwise misappropriate an actual customer list 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 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 holding a customer list is readily ascertainable when businesses are willing to disclose identity of a supplier when contacted by telephone holding that a customer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers which were conveyed to the telephone company