Thomas' English Muffins, that is. An executive of Thomas' (which is actually owned by a Mexican conglomerate) took a position at Hostess. Thomas' accused the exec of double-dealing for months and secreting away a dozen files onto a thumb drive – and got an injunction against him preventing him from taking the new job.
I like this story because it's a great example of a 'real-world'
scenario that triggers interesting e-discovery issues. You've got the usual stuff, of course, but it gets into privacy; specifically, how much protection may an executive with a confidentiality agreement expect when negotiating with the competition?
I suppose the exec might raise the "Twinkie Defense"…(dammit…I almost made it through without making a confection-related joke…)
Amazing they didn’t let him take the job – Hostess doesn’t even make muffins!
From the article:
“Hostess Brands Inc. doesn’t make English muffins. But that doesn’t matter to the lawyers seeking to protect the trademarked “nooks and crannies” in a U.S. baking industry where four major players duke it out on supermarket shelves.
“Botticella could produce an English muffin that might look a bit different, but that would nevertheless possess the distinctive taste, texture and flavor character that distinguish the Thomas’ English Muffin and that have been the foundation of the product’s success,” they argued in a brief submitted to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”