Motion for a preliminary injunction preventing a prior employee from divulging trade secrets to a competitor/new employer; Whether the moving party was required to prove each of the preliminary injunction factors by clear & convincing evidence

The court held that the district court erred by requiring plaintiff-PCC Airfoils to meet each of the preliminary injunction factors with clear and convincing evidence. Defendant-Daughtrey, an engineer, worked for PCC for 26 years before he took a job as director of engineering with a PCC competitor (the other defendant). PCC accused him of stealing trade secrets and sued to enjoin him from using the information or working on products similar to what he was working on at PCC. The district court denied the injunction. On appeal, the court held that a “movant does not need to establish a quantum of proof, whether a preponderance or clear and convincing evidence, with respect to each factor to be eligible for preliminary relief.” Although the unlikeliness of success on the merits or failure to show irreparable injury would result in a denial, the moving party is not required “to establish ‘clear and convincing evidence’ with respect to each of the four factors in order to be eligible for preliminary relief.” The court noted that the “necessary showing for any one factor turns on the strength of the plaintiff’s showings for the other factors.” Given that “the Supreme Court has cautioned that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies in only a few rare circumstances, . . . a court may not require every plaintiff to meet a heightened standard of proof for every preliminary injunction factor to qualify for injunctive relief. The district court erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.” Reversed and remanded.