“Ownership” in a Legal Fog
Del Rosso’s legal team has asserted that many of the emails Azima claims as proprietary — including pricing data and other business details — belong not to him personally but to other companies. Judge Osteen admitted the case law is murky, noting that the state statute fails to define the term “owner,” and state appellate courts have yet to weigh in on how ownership is established under the law.
“This court has not yet been able to identify record evidence establishing that plaintiff has a property right in many of his proffered trade secrets,” Osteen wrote. “Rather, the record evidence suggests that many of the proffered trade secrets constitute business information generated by several of plaintiff’s companies.”
The judge emphasized that Azima must prove some form of property right in the alleged trade secrets to continue his case — but acknowledged that the statute and its legislative history leave key questions unanswered.
A Legal Game of Chess
Judge Osteen laid out specific questions for both parties to address, including whether Azima can claim ownership by virtue of:
