Ex-MBX Security Director Denies "Mass Download" Lawsuit Allegation
Former MBX Systems safety and security director Tom Larson asked a judge to rule that most of the company's trade secrets lawsuit against him lacks merit because he was unable to engage in an alleged "mass download" of files before he left.
In this report, we examine Larson’s arguments, his claims about what the evidence shows, and how a ruling would impact the case.
Executive *******
******* ***** **** ****** ********** ********* files, *** ***** ****** ******** ** win *** ******* ******** **** *** former ******** ***** *** ******* ***** secrets.
********* ****** **** ** *** ** discovery ********* **** ****** ***** **** needed ** ** ********** ******* ** the *******'* ************, ******** ************ ** conduct *** *********, ****** *******.
****** **** ** *** ** * plane ********* **** *** **** ** Austin, *****, **** *** ********* ********* began ** ****. **, ****. ** argued **** ** *** **** ****** that *** ***** **** ********** ********** by ******* *** ******** ********* *** account.
** * ***** ***** ******** ** Larson’s ***** ** *** ******, * of ***’* * ****** ** *** lawsuit ***** ** **********. *** ********* supporting ******** *** *** **** ***** also ** ****** ** ** ****, making ** ********* *** *** ** continue ** **** ******* ** *** remaining ******. * ****** ** ***'* favor ***** **** *** **** ********* as ** ****** *****.
******* *** *** ******** ** *******.
**********
******, *****-********* ******** "********** **********"**** **** **** **,*** ********* ** the ********, *** ***** ~** ***** in *** ******** *** ******* **********.** ******** ****** ******** *** ******** ******** *** *** and **** ** ******* ****.
***, *** ***** ** ********** ***** provider *****, ********* *** ************* ****** ********** **** *** ***** from *** *** ******** ******** ** a **-*** **** ****** ******* *** company. *** ******* ** **** *** information ** ********* ******* ******** ***** joining*******, ***** ** ** *** ********* and ******** ********.
*** ****, ********** ********** *******: *** **. *** Larson******** ******** ******* ******** ***, **** Surveillance.
Summary ******** ******
****** ***** * ****** ******* “******* judgment” ** ***** *** ******* ***** secrets ******, *** ******** ***** *****, breach ** ********* ****, *** ****** of ******** “******* ** ** ****** upon ** ******* **************** ** ***** secrets.” **** ******** ******* ********, * judge ***** ** *** ****** ** the ****** ***** ** ********** *** evidence ******* ********* ******* * **** trial.
********* ** *********** ********** *** *********, ***** ** ********* ****:
***’* ****************-***** ****** ***** **** ** alleged “**** ********” ** “* ***** of ***’* ***** ****** *** ************ information” ****** * ***-*** ********* ******** on ********* **, ****.
*******, *** **** ******** ******** ** MBX ** ******* ** ****************demonstrate **** *** ****** ********** *** *********** *** ****** ****** ***************. Larson did not, and could not, have performed the downloads relied upon by MBX. [Emphasis *****.]
** *********** *********, ***** ** ******* ****, *** claimed ****** ******** * *************** *********, engaged ** ******** ************, *** ******** the ******* ***** ******* ***, *** federal ****** ***** ******* ***, *** federal ******** ***** *** ***** ***, and ********* ****** ** *** ****** employer.*** ******* ***** ** ******* ********* in **** ****, ****** * ******** interference ***** ******* *******.
Slow ********* ********
****** ******* **** *** ******** **** and ******* ********* ** *** ******** for *********** ***** *** ******* ********. The ******* *** ******* **** ****** downloaded ******** *****, “******** ******** ************* being ******* ** ***,” ******* ****** and *** ***********, ******** **** ** customers, ********* **************, ******* *********** *** forecasts, ******* ********* *******, *** ********* plans.
** *** **********, ****** ****:
***ignored *******’* ****** *** ***** until Larson served formal discovery on May 24, 2023, including Larson’s Interrogatory No. 5 requesting that that MBX identify and describe each piece or unit of information comprising the “trove of MBX’s trade secret and confidential information” that MBX alleged Larson had downloaded.
*** ******* ***** ******** **** *** information ** ********* **kept ************ under a protective order, and then it supplied “only ** ***** ** ********* (*** *** ***** *** *** ******** ** ****),” Larson alleged. [Emphasis *****.]
Evidence ** **** ********
** * ******** ******* ** *** memorandum, ****** **** * *********** ****** over ** *** ********* “**** *** logged ********* **** ********** ** * system ** ***’* ********, *** **** of *** ****** ********* **** ***** while ****** *** ****** ** ********.”
*** ********** *********: “*** **** *** Mr. ****** ***** **** *********** *** downloads **** ** *** ****** ***** he *** ******* ********* ** ** he *** *** ****** ** ***’* servers, ***** ****** *** ***.”
*******, ****** *******: “*** ******** ********* that *** ********* **** ******’* ******* reflect *** ** ********* ******* **** Larson’s *** ****** ***** ******* *** inspecting ** ******* ** *** ***** shortly ***** ****** ******** ****** ** his ***********.”
***** **** ******* *** ******** ** Larson’s *******, *** *** ****** ****** is ***** ****, ****** **** ** his ********** **** ** ** ******* implicated ** *** ******** “*** ******** allocated ** *** *** *** **** registered ** *** ***** ** ***** February *, ****.” ****** **** **** that: “****** ***** **** ** *******’ hostname ** “***.***.***” *** *** ******** as “***-***,” ***** ******* ** ***** for “*** ************.”
“Detrimental ******** *********”
****** **** ** ******* ** ***** MBX ** **** ****** **** ******* the ******* “*** ******** ** ******** practices **** **** *********** ** ******’* long-term ****** *************.”***** ********* ******** “************ **** * volatile ******** ******* ****** ** ******** to ********* ****** *** ********* *** marking ** ****** ***** ** ********** market ****** **** ****** *** ******** was ******** * ***** ******.”
** ******** ****** ** *********** ** Sept. **, **** *** ****** ** stay ** ***** ***. *, **** to “****** **** ************* *** **************** and ******** ************* ****** *** *******.”
****** ******* ** *** “******** **********” on ***. *, **** ***** ********** to *** *** ***** ****** **** he *** ********* * ********** *********** with ***** *********. ***** ******* ***, Larson ****** ** ****** *********** *** then ****** ******* ** ******** ****.
******* **********, ******began ******* *** ****** *********** (a company involved in a business unrelated to MBX’s business). SUMF ¶ 7 (Larson Decl. ¶ 8). In *** ******** ** ******** ******** **** ***, Larson *** *** ******* ****** *** *********** **** ***** *********, which he had intended to do part time while working at Sentry Enterprises. SUMF ¶ 8 (Larson Decl. ¶ 9). In November 2021, he began a consulting position with Velasea, LLC (“Velasea”). [Emphasis *****.]
No ******* **** ***
*************** **** *** *** *** ***** to ****'* ********* ***** ******* *** company ******* ** ******* ** ******'* motion, *** ******* ** **** ******** with *** **** ** ****** ****. An ******** *** ***,********* *. ***** ** ********* **** LLP, **** ****: "***** *** *** reaching ***. *******, ** ** *** comment ** ******* **********."
What ***** ****
*** *** ****** ** ***** ** Larson’s ****** *** ******* ** ****** his *********. * ***** *** **** on **** ** *** ** ******’* motion, *** *** ********* **** ****** would ****** ** * **** ****** trial.
Outlook *** ****
*** *** ***** ** **** ** prove **** ****** ******** ***** ******** of *** ********** *********, *** ** may ** **** ******** ** ****** the **** ******* *** ******** ******. If * ***** ***** ** ***** of *** ** *** ** *** claims, ******* *******.
***** *** ******* ** *******, ** alleges *** ********** *** ***** ******, we ******* *** *********.