Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Flatiron Health, Inc. v. Carson

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

March 19, 2020, Decided; March 20, 2020, Filed

19 Civ. 8999 (VM)

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Flatiron Health, Inc. ("Flatiron") brought this action against its former employee, defendant Kenneth Carson, M.D. ("Carson"), to enforce a non-compete agreement.1 Flatiron claims that Carson anticipatorily repudiated the terms of the parties' Covenants Agreement (the "Covenants Agreement") by informing Flatiron that he accepted a job at Tempus Labs, Inc. ("Tempus") and planned to immediately begin work there. Flatiron seeks a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, determining that the Covenants [*2]  Agreement bars Carson from working for Tempus and soliciting Flatiron customers and employees for one year following his separation from employment by Flatiron, and that it also bars Carson from retaining, using, or disclosing any of Flatiron's trade secrets and confidential information. In addition, Flatiron asks the Court for injunctive relief restraining Carson, until September 26, 2020, from violating the terms of the Covenants Agreement, including by working for Tempus, soliciting Flatiron's customers, or revealing Flatiron's trade secrets or confidential information.

The Court held a bench trial on January 27, 28, and 30, 2020 to adjudicate Flatiron's claims. On February 19, 2020, the Court issued a judgment denying Flatiron's requests for a declaratory judgment and an injunction and indicated that a formal Decision and Order stating the Court's findings, reasoning, and conclusions would follow. (See Dkt. No. 94.)

Shortly thereafter, Flatiron filed a motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) ("Rule 62(d)"), asking the Court to enjoin Carson from working for Tempus or, alternatively, from violating certain limitations on the scope of his employment at Tempus, pending appeal of this Court's decision to the Second Circuit. [*3]  Carson has submitted a response to that request, and Flatiron has replied. The Court resolves that motion in a separate Decision and Order.

The Court now issues this decision setting forth the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its February 19, 2020 judgment as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48699 *

FLATIRON HEALTH, INC., Plaintiff, - against - KENNETH CARSON, M.D., Defendant.

Prior History: Flatiron Health, Inc. v. Carson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192052 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019)

CORE TERMS

Non-Compete, clinical, patients, confidential, secrets, customers, lab, Oncology, pharmaceutical, Covenants, oncologist, real-world, overbroad, team, aggregated, electronic, dissemination, laboratory, software, proprietary, day-to-day, competitors, irreparable, disclosure, databases, overlap, partial, conversation, candidates, technology