Nike v. Dekovic Et Al. Answer and Counterclaims

1 - DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER

1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730

(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DENIS DEKOVIC, an individual; MARC DOLCE, an individual; and MARK MINER, an individual,

Defendants.

No. 14CV18876

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

For its answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Nike (“Nike”), Defendants Denis

Dekovic, Marc Dolce, and Mark Miner (“Defendants”) admit, deny, and allege as follows:

I. Introduction

1.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 1. Answering further, Denis Dekovic,

Marc Dolce, and Mark Miner (collectively the “Designers”) were three of Nike’s top

footwear designers, responsible for some of Nike’s most successful footwear launches over

the last several years. The Designers independently decided that the Nike corporate culture

was stifling their creativity. And they, along with many of their design co-workers, were

alarmed about the culture of distrust and intimidation that permeates the relationships

between Nike executives and Nike Design creatives. The Designers decided that they

wanted to leave Nike to create an independent studio, to be hired by companies to provide

artistic direction across product lines. They discussed branching out to many product types,

including furniture, transportation, household items, fashion, apparel and sneakers. Nothing




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

about their idea for an independent studio relies on any confidential information of Nike’s.

Unlike Nike’s design “Kitchen,” which is steeped in Nike corporate culture and politics, the

Designers’ design studio concept is focused on interaction with the consuming public,

without a stifling bureaucratic overlay. The Designers are not interested in and will not use

old Nike designs or old Nike ideas in their new venture. To the extent that any of the

Designers have old files or pictures that Nike contends are trade secrets, they do not want to

keep them and have agreed to permanently delete them. None of the Designers has ever

passed any trade secret information to adidas or any other competitor, and they will not ever

do so.

2.

Paragraph 2 appears to contain partial quotes taken out of context from a document

that Nike did not identify or provide to the Designers. The document, if it exists, speaks for

itself and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, they neither admit nor

deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document was obtained improperly or

contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to strike. The Designers deny

the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. Answering further, and as explained more

fully in the counterclaims, this lawsuit is based on Nike’s breathtaking breach of the

Designers’ personal privacy. Although Nike claims to permit non-business use of the

electronic communications systems, Nike monitored, read, copied and distributed its

employees’ personal communications with friends and family. Answering further, the

Designers’ popularity on social media is not measured by numbers of followers, but by their

followers’ participation and the vibrancy of their community. By that measure, the

Designers are among the most popular designers on social media. Nike, on the other hand,

recently had over a quarter-million “fake followers” removed from its Instagram account.

http://64px.com/instagram/ When the Designers pitched their design studio idea to adidas,

the parties found that their ideas were closely aligned, and agreed that the Designers could, if

http://64px.com/instagram/




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

they decided to leave Nike, create a design studio within adidas that would free them and

other adidas designers to have influence over brand direction, without strict product-line

responsibility and with the ability to share ideas with consumers.

3.

With respect to paragraph 3, the Designers admit that they signed agreements that

Nike has identified as non-competition agreements with Nike, the terms of which speak for

themselves. Paragraph 3 also appears to contain partial quotes taken out of context from a

document that Nike did not identify or provide to the Designers. The document, if it exists,

speaks for itself and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, the

Designers neither admit nor deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document

was obtained improperly or contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to

strike. Except as expressly admitted, the Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in

this paragraph.

4.

Paragraphs 4-5 appear to contain partial quotes taken out of context from a document


itself and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, they neither admit nor

deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document was obtained improperly or

contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to strike. The Designers deny

the remainder of the allegations in these paragraphs.

5.

With respect to paragraph 6, the Designers deny Nike’s mischaracterizations of their

actions. Defendant Dekovic admits that on or about September 16, 2014, while he was still

employed by Nike, an Apple technician copied data from Dekovic’s Nike-issued laptop to an

external hard drive because his laptop had been damaged for approximately two weeks, and

Nike was unable to fix his laptop despite Dekovic’s request to Nike for help. Dekovic also




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

has since returned his damaged Nike-issued laptop to Nike and has returned an external hard

drive containing Nike information from his damaged Nike-issued laptop to Nike. In

addition, Dekovic admits that he has submitted his other electronic devices to an independent

forensic examiner and intends to return or delete Nike information from those electronic

devices in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

Defendant Dolce admits that in September 2014, he deleted primarily his

confidential, personal, or financial information and photos from his Nike-issued MacBook

before returning it to Nike. Defendants Dolce and Miner admit that they restored their

iPhones to factory default settings before returning them to Nike. The Designers’ actions

were not inconsistent with Nike policy or practice.

Paragraph 6 also appears to contain a partial quote taken out of context from a


speaks for itself and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, they neither

admit nor deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document was obtained

improperly or contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to strike.

Except as expressly admitted, the Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in this

paragraph.

6.

With respect to paragraph 7, the Designers admit that they posted a message which

said “GRATEFUL for the past EXCITED for the future 3 brothers 3 dreamers 3 stripes

#TeamAdidas 2015” with a picture of themselves. The Designers deny Nike’s false

characterization of this quote. Furthermore, Nike has taken another partial quote out of

context from a document that Nike did not identify or provide to the Designers, so the

Designers neither admit nor deny that portion of the allegation. To the extent any document





(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

strike. Except as expressly admitted, the Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in

this paragraph.

7.

Paragraphs 8-9 appear to contain partial quotes taken out of context from a document


itself and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, the Designers neither


improperly or contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to strike. The

Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in these paragraphs.

8.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 10 and 11.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

9.

Paragraphs 12-13 contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is

required.

III. Parties

10.

Defendants admit paragraph 14.

11.

Defendant Dekovic denies paragraph 15.

12.

Defendant Dolce denies paragraph 16.

13.

Defendant Miner denies paragraph 17.




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

IV. Factual Background

14.

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

allegations in paragraph 18-22, and therefore deny the same.

15.

Defendant Dekovic admits that he worked as a Senior Designer and as a Design

Director and Senior Design Director for Nike’s Global Football. Defendant Dekovic admits

that he had design and leadership responsibilities at Nike. Except as expressly admitted, the

Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 23.

16.

Defendant Dolce admits that he worked as a Senior Designer in Nike’s Active Life

Division, as Design Director of Nike Sportwear, as Design Collections Lead for Nike

Sportswear, and as a lead product designer. Defendant Dolce admits that he had design and

leadership responsibilities at Nike. Except as expressly admitted, the Designers deny the

remainder of the allegations in paragraph 24.

17.

Defendant Miner admits that he worked as a footwear designer in Nike’s Global

Women’s Training and as a Senior Footwear Designer of Nike Running. Miner admits that

he had design responsibilities at Nike. Except as expressly admitted, the Designers deny the

remainder of the allegations in paragraph 25.

18.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 26 and 27.

19.

With respect to paragraphs 28-30, the Designers admit that they entered into non-

competition agreements with Nike, the terms of which speak for themselves. To the extent




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

that paragraphs 28-30 require a responsive pleading, the Designers deny the allegations in

those paragraphs.

20.

With respect to paragraph 31, the Designers admit that they entered into an employee

invention and secrecy agreement with Nike, the terms of which speak for themselves. To the

extent that paragraph 31 requires a responsive pleading, the Designers deny the allegations in

that paragraph.

21.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 32-33.

22.

Paragraph 34 appears to refer to a statement taken out of context from a document

that Nike did not identify or provide to the Designers. Until the Designers receive a copy of

the document, the Designers neither admit nor deny this portion of the allegation. To the

extent any document was obtained improperly or contains privileged communications, the

Designers will move to strike. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in this

paragraph.

23.






Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

///

///

///




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

24.


25.







Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 40.

26.

Paragraphs 41-45 appear to contain partial quotes taken out of context from a





strike. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in these paragraphs.

27.


28.






strike. With respect to paragraph 49, defendant Dekovic admits that he met with his friend




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

Brian Foresta many times over many years, including in June 2014. Except as expressly

admitted, the Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in these paragraphs.

29.

With respect to paragraph 52, the Designers admit that they consulted with legal

counsel. Defendants neither admit nor deny portions of the allegations protected by the

attorney-client privilege, specifically any information exchanged between the Designers and

legal counsel or between the Designers regarding the legal advice of counsel. Furthermore,

paragraph 52 appears to contain partial quotes taken out of context from a document that

Nike did not identify or provide to the Designers. The document, if it exists, speaks for itself

and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, the Designers neither admit

nor deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document was obtained improperly

or contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to strike. Defendants deny

the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

30.






strike. Defendants admit that they met with Brian Foresta, Eric Liedtke, and Paul Gaudio.

Except as expressly admitted, the Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in these

paragraphs.

31.


///

///




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

32.







33.


34.

Paragraph 59 appears to contain a partial quote taken out of context from a document






35.


36.










(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

37.

The allegations in paragraphs 64-65 contain some half-truths and distortions.

Defendant Dekovic admits that his Nike laptop was damage and that Nike was unwilling to

assist him to repair it or restore or retrieve the data. Dekovic further admits that a purported

copy was made, but denies the balance of paragraphs 64-65.

38.


39.







40.


41.







42.

With respect to paragraph 75, Defendants admit that they have posted a message

which said “GRATEFUL for the past EXCITED for the future 3 brothers 3 dreamers 3




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

stripes #TeamAdidas 2015” with a picture of themselves. Defendants deny the remainder of

the allegations in paragraph 75.

43.


44.







45.


46.







47.


CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

48.

Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through 84.




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

49.

With respect to paragraphs 86-117, the Designers admit that they signed

noncompetition agreements and employee invention and secrecy agreements with Nike, the

terms of which speak for themselves. Defendants also admit that Nike has paid them each 50

percent of their Nike salaries during the applicable non-compete period. Defendants deny

the remaining allegations in paragraphs 86-117.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

50.


51.

With respect to paragraph 119, the Designers admit that they signed noncompetition

agreements and employee invention and secrecy agreements with Nike, the terms of which

speak for themselves. To the extent this paragraph states a legal conclusion, no response is

necessary. To the extent a response is necessary, the Designers deny the allegations in

paragraph 119.

52.


THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

53.


54.

To the extent that paragraph 126 states a legal conclusion, no response is necessary.

To the extent a response is necessary, the Designers deny the allegations in paragraph 126.

55.


///




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

56.


57.

To the extent that paragraphs 133 - 135 state legal conclusions, no response is

necessary. To the extent a response is necessary, the Designers deny the allegations in

paragraphs 133-135.

58.


FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

59.


60.



61.


SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

62.

Defendant Dekovic incorporates his answers to paragraphs 1 through 145.

63.

Defendant Dekovic denies the allegations in paragraphs 147-150.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

64.


///




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

65.



66.


EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

67.


68.


69.

With respect to paragraph 167, the Designers deny that its claims meet the standards

required to plead punitive damages.

70.

Defendants deny each and every allegation in the Complaint except as specifically

alleged above.

I. Defenses

By way of defense or avoidance, and as a precautionary matter and without assuming

the burden or pleading or proof, which burden Defendants assert is on the Plaintiff,

Defendants allege as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Claim)

71.

As a separate and independent affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the

Complaint and each and every cause of action within it fails to state ultimate facts sufficient




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

to constitute a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

(Preemption by the Oregon Trade Secrets Act)

72.

As a separate and independent affirmative defense, Defendants allege that Plaintiff’s

seventh claim for relief is preempted by the Oregon Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461-

646.475.

THIRD DEFENSE

(Contractual Invalidity)

73.

As a separate and independent affirmative defense, Defendants allege that each

Covenant Not to Compete and Non-Disclosure Agreement and each Employee Invention and

Secrecy Agreement relied on by Plaintiff constitutes an invalid and improper restraint on

trade at common law and pursuant to ORS 653.295.

FOURTH DEFENSE

(Estoppel/Waiver/Permission/Ratification)

74.

Any alleged wrongful conduct by the Designers, if true, was legally permitted on the

grounds of estoppel, waiver, permission and/or ratification. In particular, Plaintiff:

A. Knew, approved, did not object, and/or encouraged Defendant Dekovic’s

contribution to the outside Moonwalker project;

B. Encouraged and/or directed Defendants to broadly publish their drawings and

designs;

C. Engaged in a pattern of aggressive recruitment of designers from competitors,

encouraging and establishing a culture of disloyalty and mobility in the design community,

including requiring Defendants to participate;




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

D. Failed to enforce, as it now seeks to enforce against Defendants, terms of its

noncompetition and confidentiality agreements against other departed or departing

employees;

E. Failed to provide support and assistance to Defendants to identify and remove

from Defendants’ electronic devices that which plaintiff now claims to be protected

proprietary information and/or trade secrets; and

F. Released or leaked to the public information it now contends Defendants

unlawfully possess.

FIFTH DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands / In Pari Delicto)

75.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in party by the doctrines of unclean hands

and in pari delicto. In particular, and as alleged herein on information and belief, Plaintiff’s

claims rely on records it obtained unlawfully, and it cannot therefore obtain the equitable or

legal relief it seeks.

I. Counterclaims

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

(Violation of Stored Communications Act)

76.

The Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, imposes liability upon any

person who “intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an

electronic communication service is provided; or intentionally exceeds an authorization to

access that facility; and there by obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or

electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 2701(a). 18 U.S.C. § 2707 authorizes civil actions for violations of the Act.




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

77.

On information and belief, Plaintiff intentionally accessed one or more facilities,

through which an electronic communication service is provided in its efforts to obtain private

information formerly stored on Defendants’ laptops and smart phones. These facilities

include, but are not limited to, the facilities, servers, and networks used by iCloud,

WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook, and Gmail.

78.

In doing so, Plaintiff obtained certain of Defendants’ electronic communications,

including but not limited to the numerous personal communications quoted and attached to

Plaintiff’s complaint and motion for temporary restraining order.

79.

Plaintiff’s access was obtained without Defendants’ authorization and in excess of the

scope of any authorization associated with Defendants’ employment by Plaintiff.

80.

As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s breach, the full extent of which is still

unknown, Defendants have suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but

not less than the sum of $1,000, as provided by statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2707.

81.

Plaintiff’s manifestly unauthorized access involved substantial expense, time, and

diligence and was willful and intentional. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to punitive

damages and intend to move pursuant to ORS 31.725 and 18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) to add a claim

for punitive damages against Plaintiff for its willful and intentional violation of the Stored

Communications Act.

///

///

///




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

(Violation of Social Media Privacy Act, ORS 659A.330)

82.

Oregon law makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to “[r]equire

or request an employee * * * to disclose or to provide access through the employee’s * * *

user name and password, password or other means of authentication that provides access to a

personal social media account.” ORS 659A.330(1)(a). An employer is not liable for access

to social media accounts received inadvertently, but the employer “may not use the

information to access the personal social media account[s] of the employee.”

ORS 659A.330(6).

83.

Plaintiff’s Electronic Communications Policy, as quoted at footnote 2 of the

complaint, unlawfully requires employees to grant Plaintiff access to their social media

accounts, by reserving to Plaintiff “the right to access the electronic communication systems

and monitor data and messages within them, and to read, reject or remove any message,

including attachments, composed, sent or received, at any time for any reason.”

84.

The foregoing, if construed as pleaded by Plaintiff, would improperly permit Plaintiff

to access personal email and social media accounts, all of which satisfy the statutory

definition of “social media account” found at ORS 659A.330(7).

85.

On information and belief, Plaintiff accessed Defendants’ social media accounts by

using the account authentication data stored and/or programmed on Defendants’ electronic

devices, in spite of reasonable measures taken by Defendants to protect said personal social

media account data.




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

86.

To the extent Plaintiff purports to have accessed the accounts by inadvertence, rather

than by compulsion, Plaintiff nevertheless violated its statutory obligation not to use the

personal social media account data accessed through Defendants’ devices by repeatedly

employing that material to support the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint.

87.

As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s compulsory, improper, and

unauthorized access to Defendants’ social media accounts, the full extent of which remains

undiscovered, Defendants have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

THIRD COUNTERCLAIM

(Invasion of Privacy - Intrusion upon Seclusion)

88.

Defendants’ social media accounts, including email applications, networking

platforms, and messaging applications, pertained to Defendants’ private affairs and concerns.

89.

Defendants protected their social media accounts with passwords and authentication

methods sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in those accounts.

90.

By obtaining unauthorized and wide-ranging access to these accounts, Plaintiff

intentionally intruded upon Defendants’ private affairs.

91.

Plaintiff’s intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

92.

As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff’s intrusion upon Defendants’ private

affairs, Defendants have suffered offense and anguish, resulting in damages in an amount to

be proven at trial.




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM

(Bad Faith/Attorney’s Fees, ORS 646.467(1) & ORS 20.105.)

93.

Plaintiff’s trade secrets claims are meritless and have been made entirely without any

basis in fact or law. Plaintiff knows, or should reasonably know, that the Defendants have

not disclosed and do not intend to disclose or misappropriate any of Plaintiff’s trade secrets.

The Complaint fails to allege a single instance of disclosure or misappropriation of a

protected trade secret or any expression of intent to do so.

94.

Plaintiff’s trade secret claims also have an improper purpose. The Complaint was

filed as part of a publicity stunt, the purpose of which was to disrupt Defendants and their

future employer and to chill other Nike employees from considering leaving Nike, lest they

too be sued.

95.

Due to Plaintiff’s bad faith in filing and maintaining trade secrets claims, Defendants

are entitled to reasonable attorney fees pursuant to either or both ORS 646.467(1) and ORS

20.105.

FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM

(Declaratory Relief – ORS 28.020-28.030; ORS 28.080; ORS 653.295)

96.

Nike’s Covenant Not to Compete agreements with the Designers are unenforceable

because they are overreaching and do not protect any legitimate interest of Nike.

97.

The Designers’ noncompetition agreements include “Competition Restriction”

clauses which state: “During EMPLOYEE’s employment by NIKE, under the terms of any




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

employment contract or otherwise, and for 1 year thereafter, (the “Restriction Period”),

EMPLOYEE will not directly or indirectly, own, manage, control, or participate in the

ownership, management or control of, or be employed by, consult for, or be connected in any

manner with, any business engaged anywhere in the world in the athletic footwear, athletic

apparel or sports equipment, sport electronics/technology and sports accessories business, or

any other business which directly competes with NIKE * * * .”

98.

The Designers signed additional employee invention and secrecy agreements, and

their noncompetition agreements contained clauses including “Return of Protected

Information,” “Unauthorized Use,” and “Non-Solicitation/Non-Recruitment.” These other

provisions provide more than adequate protection of any legitimate interests. The

“Competition Restriction” clauses in the noncompetition agreements serve no purpose, save

for unlawfully stifling fair competition and crippling the Designers’ ability to obtain

employment elsewhere.

99.

Neither thwarting competition nor hamstringing a former employee’s ability to work

or seek new employment is a legitimate interest of an employer.

100.

Nike’s assertion that “Competition Restriction” clauses protect against the

misappropriation of trade secrets is not a legitimate interest or concern here. Design skills,

concepts, visions, and creative ability are not “trade secrets.” The more technical

confidential information alleged as trade secrets is actually already prevalent in the industry,

so it is not a trade secret and replication by a competitor would be unnecessary. Furthermore,

in the Designers’ industry, competitors do not benefit from the use of another’s alleged

“trade secrets.” The use of a competitor’s “trade secrets” in this industry would be the

antithesis of a designer’s creative mission to develop new, fresh, innovative concepts. The




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

Designers and adidas would not benefit from copying Nike’s product lines, product launches,

or related information. Nike cannot allege or prove that the Designers inevitably used or will

use Nike’s trade secrets in their work.

101.

The overbroad scope and vagueness render the “Competition Restriction” clauses

unenforceable. In particular, the “Competition Restriction” clauses state that former

employees cannot “be connected in any manner with, any business engaged anywhere in the

world in the athletic footwear, athletic apparel or sports equipment, sport

electronics/technology and sports accessories business.” This provision far exceeds any

legitimate restrictive covenant permissible in Oregon and if enforced literally would produce

oppressive results, including making it virtually impossible for a Nike employee to seek

future employment with a competitor. This violates both the public interest and specifically

the Designers’ interest in earning a living.

102.

The practical effect of this clause is to handcuff employees to Nike, preventing them

from working in the athletic industry. Nike is seeking to apply it to the Designers to punish

them for seeking future employment from adidas, even beyond the noncompetition period.

103.

The “Extension of Time” clauses in the Covenants Not to Compete are also

unreasonable, void, and unenforceable. Extension of time restrictions in noncompetition

agreements are not authorized by Oregon law. And, any alleged trade secrets which Nike

claims the Designers maintain in their possession have short shelf life. These alleged trade

secrets will soon be disclosed or already have been disclosed by Nike. In the fast-moving,

trendy world of design, the information will be stale and outdated in a year; thus, a time

extension is not warranted.

///




(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

104.

Pursuant to ORS 28.020-28.030; ORS 28.080; and ORS 653.295, the Designers

hereby seek a declaration from this Court that their Covenants Not to Compete are invalid

and unenforceable. The Court should deem void unreasonable agreements such as these

because it discourages employers like Nike from drafting overreaching noncompetition

agreements and then later relying on a court to strike the most offensive provisions.

105.

In the alternative, the Designers request that the Court modify the Covenants Not to

Compete to strike the “Competition Restriction” and “Extension of Time” provisions.

106.

Defendant Miner’s noncompetition agreement should be deemed void under ORS

653.295 because his promotion to Senior Footwear Designer did not constitute bona fide

advancement.

107.

There is a justiciable controversy between the parties that would result in specific

relief to the Designers through the binding decree of court granting the above requested

declaratory relief.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the Court enter judgment in their favor, award

2 Plaintiff nothing, and award Defendants their damages, attorney fees and costs of suit.

3 DATED this 17th day of March, 2015.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

426908

:ARK}WITZH

Mat ew A. Levin, OSB No. 003054 [email protected] Jeffrey M . Edelson, OSB No. 880407 [email protected] Steffan Alexander, OSB No. 130258 [email protected] Anna H. Makowski , OSB No. 135530 [email protected]

Of Attorneys for Defendants Denis Dekovic, Marc Dolce, and Mark Miner

25 - DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER

1211 SW FIFTH AVENU E PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730

(503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-91 OS

ATTORNEY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 17, 2015 , I have made service ofthe foregoing DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS on the party listed below in the manner indicated

Amy Joseph Pedersen, OSB No. 853958 Laura E. Rosenbaum, OSB No. 110061 RyanS . Gibson, OSB No. 073873 Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth A venue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204

Sean S. Twomey, Pro Hac Vice Jeffrey H. Reeves, Pro Hac Vice Jeffrey T. Thomas, Pro Hac Vice Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412

Attorneys for Plaintiff

~ U.S. Mail D Facsimile 0 Hand Delivery ~ Email

ajpedersen@stoel .com; [email protected]; [email protected]

~U.S. Mail D Facsimile 0 Hand Delivery [g) Email

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

DATED this 17th day of March, 2015 .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Matt ew A. evin, OSB No . 003054 Attorney for Defendants

Documents

Nike v. Dekovic Et Al. Answer and Counterclaims