IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D. Ariz.: Preliminary injunction denied in project management trade secrets dispute, (Feb 25, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for trade secret misappropriation were not likely to succeed on the merits because the plaintiff did not show harm or threatened harm from the alleged misappropriation.

A project management company was not entitled to a preliminary injunction against former employees and their new employer, the U.S. District Court in Phoenix has held. The former employees, according to the company, violated both federal and state law for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of the non-disclosure agreements. The evidence did not support a finding of either likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm (Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC v. Brosa, No. 2:25-cv-02339-JJT (D. Ariz. Feb. 18, 2026)).

Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments, LLC, and Bureau Veritas North American, Inc. (collectively, Veritas) were in the business of providing project management services for multi-site customers. Veritas employed Blake Brosa as Executive Vice President of Sales, and Todd Tankersley as developer of its project management software, ProTrack. Both employees signed non-disclosure agreements. Both employees eventually left their employment with Veritas and began working for Apex Imaging Services, Inc. (Apex), a provider of general construction services for multi-site customers. Veritas brought suit against Apex and the two former employees under both federal and state law for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of the non-disclosure agreements. Veritas then sought an injunction forbidding the defendants from making any use of its claimed trade secrets and requiring them to return its information. The court considered the Winter elements.

Likelihood of success on the merits. It was admitted that Brosa had copied files from a work laptop belonging to Veritas to an external drive. This drive was examined by a court-appointed expert and returned to Veritas. The expert’s report indicated that it included numerous documents originating from Veritas, and Veritas relied on three for its claims: an executed project proposal, a spreadsheet of project data for active projects as of 2024, and notes from an internal meeting identifying “Must Wins,” as well as business emails. The court found that, apart from the emails, these documents derived value from their secrecy and were reasonably protected by Veritas, so they qualified as protectable trade secrets. Brosa’s copying of those files constituted misappropriation, although the court did not see a reason to attribute that copying to Apex absent information that Apex had used or obtained the information. As to Tankersley, the court found that the allegations of misappropriation relied entirely on the inevitable disclosure doctrine: because he worked on Veritas’s ProTrack software and later worked on Apex’s equivalent software, there must be misappropriation. The court held that the inevitable disclosure doctrine was not recognized within the 9th Circuit and so could not provide support for a likelihood of success on the merits. As to all defendants, the court also found that Veritas had not shown harm or threatened harm arising from the misappropriation. Without harm or threatened harm Veritas was not likely to succeed on its claims.

Irreparable harm. The court noted that Veritas alleged loss of confidential and trade secret information, loss of customer goodwill, and loss of competitive advantages. Each of these could conceivably be irreparable harm, but the court found that there was no evidence to show that such harm was forthcoming and likely. There was no showing that Tankersley or Apex had misappropriated the ProTrack system, and while there was evidence to show that Brosa had acquired business documents, there was none to show he still possessed them after returning the external hard drive to which they had been copied. The court also held that contractual language in the confidentiality agreements that provided that a breach would cause irreparable harm, while relevant, did not bind the court or overcome the court’s determination that the alleged irreparable harm was only speculative.

Finding that the first two Winter elements had not been met, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-02339-JJT.

Judge: Tuchi, J.

Attorneys: James J. Halligan (Duane Morris LLP) for Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC. David Geoffrey Bray (Dickinson Wright PLLC) for Blake Brosa.

Companies: Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC

Cases: TradeSecrets ArizonaNews