under which the information was disclosed ... to (any) employee to the extent that they give rise to a reasonable inference that further disclosure, without the consent of the possessor, is prohibited, and (4) the degree to which the information has been placed in the public domain or rendered “readily ascertainable” by the third parties through patent applications or unrestricted product marketing. USM Corporation v. Marson Fastener Corporation, 393 N.E.2d at 900; Trent Partners and Associates, Inc. v. Digital Equipment Corporation, 120 F.Supp.2d 84, 110 (D.Mass.1999) (citing USM and same four factors); Baystate Technologies, Inc. v. Bentley Systems, Inc., 946 F.Supp. 1079, 1092 (D.Mass.1996); see also Eastern Marble Products Corporation v. Roman Marble, Inc., 364 N.E.2d at 802 (<HOLDING>). In making this determination, “[A] court
recognizing that requiring employees to sign confidentiality agreements and separating manufacturing area from public view supported finding that possessor of trade secret adequately preserved the necessary secrecy of manufacturing process recognizing that some police records must remain secret and free from public inspection as a matter of public policy recognizing a corporations legal rights to confidentiality and privilege recognizing duty of possessor of land or chattels to control conduct of licensee recognizing strong public interest in maintaining confidentiality of official records concerning child abuse