Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D. Md.: Preliminary injunction denied in national security contractor dispute, (Oct 9, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A risk of irreparable harm was not shown because the emails an employee forwarding to himself had been deleted and could not therefore be disclosed any further.

A national security contractor was not entitled to a preliminary injunction against a former employee, the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt has held. The contractor failed to show a risk of irreparable harm (Peraton Inc. v. Hussain, No. 8:25-cv-02164-DKC (D. Md. Oct. 6, 2025)).

Peraton, Inc. (Peraton) was a national security company engaged in government contracting in the areas of “space, intelligence, cyber, defense, homeland security, citizen security, and health.” Sam Hussain was employed as Peraton’s Director of Corporate Growth and Strategy. As a condition of his employment, Hussain signed a Letter of Understanding containing confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements, and which specified that Hussain agreed Peraton could suffer irreparable harm in the event of an actual or threatened breach of those provisions.

Peraton terminated Hussain’s employment and alleged that Hussain forwarded emails from his work account to his personal email account in violation of a severance agreement. Hussain indicated that he had immediately deleted the emails in order to attempt to avoid rescission of the agreement, and alleged that Peraton was itself in breach and had discriminated against him on the basis of race and national origin. Hussain then accepted a position with a competitor of Peraton, in a role which he alleged did not participate in contracts, bids, or proposals that involved or competed with Peraton. Peraton brought suit for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and related state law claims, and then petitioned for a preliminary injunction enjoining Hussain from using, retaining, disclosing, or transmitting its trade secrets. The court considered the traditional injunction factors.

Irreparable harm. The court first found that the contractual provision acknowledging that irreparable harm may occur did not in itself prove that irreparable harm would occur, noting the need for individualized analysis. The court also found that there was no evidence provided by Peraton to contradict Hussain’s sworn declaration that he had deleted, and was therefore no longer in possession of, the offending emails.

The court noted that Peraton could have requested a hearing if it had believed that a determination of Hussain’s credibility was required. A theory of inevitable disclosure, which existed in some states’ trade secrets laws, was not shown to be recognized under federal or Virginia law and had been outright rejected by Maryland courts. The court also found that a delay of some 58 days between Peraton learning about the forwarded emails and filing for relief, as well as the following five months passing without incident, also weighed heavily against a finding of irreparable harm.

The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction without reaching the remaining factors.

The Case is No. 8:25-cv-02164-DKC.

Judge: Chasanow, D.

Attorneys: Jamie Michelle Hertz (Hyland Law) for Peraton Inc. Lisa Leigh-Anne Walker (Smithey Law Group) for Sam Hussain.

Companies: Peraton Inc.

Cases: RemediesDamages ContractClaims Privacy TortClaims MarylandNews