Nike v. Dekovic Et Al. Answer and Counterclaims

1
2
3
4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH
NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation,

No. 14CV18876
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
vs.
DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND

COUNTERCLAIMS
DENIS DEKOVIC, an individual; MARC

DOLCE, an individual; and MARK MINER,
an individual,
11
Defendants.
12
For its answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Nike (Nike), Defendants Denis
13
Dekovic, Marc Dolce, and Mark Miner (Defendants) admit, deny, and allege as follows:
14
I.
Introduction
15
1.
16
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 1. Answering further, Denis Dekovic,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page
Marc Dolce, and Mark Miner (collectively the Designers) were three of Nikes top
footwear designers, responsible for some of Nikes 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
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
about their idea for an independent studio relies on any confidential information of Nikes.
Unlike Nikes 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.
10
2.
11
Paragraph 2 appears to contain partial quotes taken out of context from a document
12
that Nike did not identify or provide to the Designers. The document, if it exists, speaks for
13
itself and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, they neither admit nor
14
deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document was obtained improperly or
15
contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to strike. The Designers deny
16
the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. Answering further, and as explained more
17
fully in the counterclaims, this lawsuit is based on Nikes breathtaking breach of the
18
Designers personal privacy. Although Nike claims to permit non-business use of the
19
electronic communications systems, Nike monitored, read, copied and distributed its
20
employees personal communications with friends and family. Answering further, the
21
Designers popularity on social media is not measured by numbers of followers, but by their
22
followers participation and the vibrancy of their community. By that measure, the
23
Designers are among the most popular designers on social media. Nike, on the other hand,
24
recently had over a quarter-million fake followers removed from its Instagram account.
25
http://64px.com/instagram/ When the Designers pitched their design studio idea to adidas,
26
the parties found that their ideas were closely aligned, and agreed that the Designers could, if
Page
2-
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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
10
Designers neither admit nor deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document
11
was obtained improperly or contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to
12
strike. Except as expressly admitted, the Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in
13
this paragraph.
14
4.
15
Paragraphs 4-5 appear to contain partial quotes taken out of context from a document
16
17
itself and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, they neither admit nor
18
deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document was obtained improperly or
19
contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to strike. The Designers deny
20
the remainder of the allegations in these paragraphs.
21
5.
22
With respect to paragraph 6, the Designers deny Nikes mischaracterizations of their
23
actions. Defendant Dekovic admits that on or about September 16, 2014, while he was still
24
employed by Nike, an Apple technician copied data from Dekovics Nike-issued laptop to an
25
external hard drive because his laptop had been damaged for approximately two weeks, and
26
Nike was unable to fix his laptop despite Dekovics request to Nike for help. Dekovic also
Page
3-
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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
10
were not inconsistent with Nike policy or practice.
11
Paragraph 6 also appears to contain a partial quote taken out of context from a
12
13
speaks for itself and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, they neither
14
admit nor deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document was obtained
15
improperly or contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to strike.
16
Except as expressly admitted, the Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in this
17
paragraph.
18
6.
19
With respect to paragraph 7, the Designers admit that they posted a message which
20
said GRATEFUL for the past EXCITED for the future 3 brothers 3 dreamers 3 stripes
21
#TeamAdidas 2015 with a picture of themselves. The Designers deny Nikes false
22
characterization of this quote. Furthermore, Nike has taken another partial quote out of
23
context from a document that Nike did not identify or provide to the Designers, so the
24
Designers neither admit nor deny that portion of the allegation. To the extent any document
25
26
Page
4-
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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.
10
8.
11
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 10 and 11.
12
II.
Jurisdiction and Venue
13
9.
14
Paragraphs 12-13 contain legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is
15
16
required.
17
III.
Parties
18
10.
19
Defendants admit paragraph 14.
20
11.
21
Defendant Dekovic denies paragraph 15.
22
12.
23
Defendant Dolce denies paragraph 16.
24
13.
25
Defendant Miner denies paragraph 17.
26
Page
5-
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
IV.
Factual Background
2
14.
Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the
4
5
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
7
8
9
10
Director and Senior Design Director for Nikes 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.
11
Defendant Dolce admits that he worked as a Senior Designer in Nikes Active Life
12
13
14
15
16
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.
17
Defendant Miner admits that he worked as a footwear designer in Nikes Global
18
19
20
21
Womens 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.
22
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 26 and 27.
23
19.
24
With respect to paragraphs 28-30, the Designers admit that they entered into non-
25
26
Page
competition agreements with Nike, the terms of which speak for themselves. To the extent
6-
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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.
10
22.
11
Paragraph 34 appears to refer to a statement taken out of context from a document
12
that Nike did not identify or provide to the Designers. Until the Designers receive a copy of
13
the document, the Designers neither admit nor deny this portion of the allegation. To the
14
extent any document was obtained improperly or contains privileged communications, the
15
Designers will move to strike. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in this
16
paragraph.
17
23.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.
24
///
25
///
26
///
Page
7-
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
24.
25.
10
Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 40.
11
26.
12
Paragraphs 41-45 appear to contain partial quotes taken out of context from a
13
14
15
16
17
strike. Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in these paragraphs.
18
27.
19
20
28.
21
22
23
24
25
26
strike. With respect to paragraph 49, defendant Dekovic admits that he met with his friend
Page
8-
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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
10
and until the Designers receive a copy of the quoted document, the Designers neither admit
11
nor deny this portion of the allegation. To the extent any document was obtained improperly
12
or contains privileged communications, the Designers will move to strike. Defendants deny
13
the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.
14
30.
15
16
17
18
19
20
strike. Defendants admit that they met with Brian Foresta, Eric Liedtke, and Paul Gaudio.
21
Except as expressly admitted, the Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in these
22
paragraphs.
23
31.
24
25
///
26
///
Page
9-
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
32.
33.
10
34.
11
Paragraph 59 appears to contain a partial quote taken out of context from a document
12
13
14
15
16
17
35.
18
19
36.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page
10 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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.
10
11
12
13
14
15
40.
16
17
41.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
42.
25
26
Page
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
11 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
stripes #TeamAdidas 2015 with a picture of themselves. Defendants deny the remainder of
the allegations in paragraph 75.
43.
44.
10
11
12
45.
13
14
46.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
47.
22
23
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
24
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
25
48.
26
Page
Defendants incorporate their answers to paragraphs 1 through 84.
12 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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.
10
51.
11
With respect to paragraph 119, the Designers admit that they signed noncompetition
12
agreements and employee invention and secrecy agreements with Nike, the terms of which
13
speak for themselves. To the extent this paragraph states a legal conclusion, no response is
14
necessary. To the extent a response is necessary, the Designers deny the allegations in
15
paragraph 119.
16
52.
17
18
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19
53.
20
21
54.
22
To the extent that paragraph 126 states a legal conclusion, no response is necessary.
23
To the extent a response is necessary, the Designers deny the allegations in paragraph 126.
24
55.
25
26
Page

///
13 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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.
10
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11
59.
12
13
60.
14
15
16
61.
17
18
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19
62.
20
Defendant Dekovic incorporates his answers to paragraphs 1 through 145.
21
63.
22
Defendant Dekovic denies the allegations in paragraphs 147-150.
23
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24
64.
25
26
Page

///
14 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
65.
66.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
67.
68.
10
11
69.
12
13
With respect to paragraph 167, the Designers deny that its claims meet the standards
required to plead punitive damages.
14
70.
15
16
Defendants deny each and every allegation in the Complaint except as specifically
alleged above.
17
I.
Defenses
18
By way of defense or avoidance, and as a precautionary matter and without assuming
19
20
21
the burden or pleading or proof, which burden Defendants assert is on the Plaintiff,
Defendants allege as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
22
(Failure to State a Claim)
23
71.
24
As a separate and independent affirmative defense, Defendants allege that the
25
26
Page
Complaint and each and every cause of action within it fails to state ultimate facts sufficient
15 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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 Plaintiffs
seventh claim for relief is preempted by the Oregon Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461-
646.475.
THIRD DEFENSE
(Contractual Invalidity)
10
73.
11
As a separate and independent affirmative defense, Defendants allege that each
12
Covenant Not to Compete and Non-Disclosure Agreement and each Employee Invention and
13
Secrecy Agreement relied on by Plaintiff constitutes an invalid and improper restraint on
14
trade at common law and pursuant to ORS 653.295.
15
FOURTH DEFENSE
16
(Estoppel/Waiver/Permission/Ratification)
17
74.
18
19
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:
20
21
A.
contribution to the outside Moonwalker project;
22
23
Knew, approved, did not object, and/or encouraged Defendant Dekovics
B.
Encouraged and/or directed Defendants to broadly publish their drawings and
designs;
24
C.
Engaged in a pattern of aggressive recruitment of designers from competitors,
25
encouraging and establishing a culture of disloyalty and mobility in the design community,
26
including requiring Defendants to participate;
Page
16 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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
7
8
F.
Released or leaked to the public information it now contends Defendants
unlawfully possess.
FIFTH DEFENSE
10
(Unclean Hands / In Pari Delicto)
11
75.
12
Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in party by the doctrines of unclean hands
13
and in pari delicto. In particular, and as alleged herein on information and belief, Plaintiffs
14
claims rely on records it obtained unlawfully, and it cannot therefore obtain the equitable or
15
legal relief it seeks.
16
I.
Counterclaims
17
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
18
(Violation of Stored Communications Act)
19
76.
20
The Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701, imposes liability upon any
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page
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.
17 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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.
8
9
10
In doing so, Plaintiff obtained certain of Defendants electronic communications,

including but not limited to the numerous personal communications quoted and attached to
Plaintiffs complaint and motion for temporary restraining order.
11
79.
12
13
Plaintiffs access was obtained without Defendants authorization and in excess of the
scope of any authorization associated with Defendants employment by Plaintiff.
14
80.
15
As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs breach, the full extent of which is still
16
unknown, Defendants have suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but
17
not less than the sum of $1,000, as provided by statute. 18 U.S.C. 2707.
18
81.
19
Plaintiffs manifestly unauthorized access involved substantial expense, time, and
20
diligence and was willful and intentional. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to punitive
21
damages and intend to move pursuant to ORS 31.725 and 18 U.S.C. 2707(c) to add a claim
22
for punitive damages against Plaintiff for its willful and intentional violation of the Stored
23
Communications Act.
24
///
25
///
26
///
Page
18 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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 employees * * *
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.
10
ORS 659A.330(6).
11
83.
12
Plaintiffs Electronic Communications Policy, as quoted at footnote 2 of the
13
complaint, unlawfully requires employees to grant Plaintiff access to their social media
14
accounts, by reserving to Plaintiff the right to access the electronic communication systems
15
and monitor data and messages within them, and to read, reject or remove any message,
16
including attachments, composed, sent or received, at any time for any reason.
17
84.
18
The foregoing, if construed as pleaded by Plaintiff, would improperly permit Plaintiff
19
to access personal email and social media accounts, all of which satisfy the statutory
20
definition of social media account found at ORS 659A.330(7).
21
85.
22
On information and belief, Plaintiff accessed Defendants social media accounts by
23
using the account authentication data stored and/or programmed on Defendants electronic
24
devices, in spite of reasonable measures taken by Defendants to protect said personal social
25
media account data.
26
Page
19 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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 Plaintiffs complaint.
87.
As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs 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.
10
THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
11
(Invasion of Privacy - Intrusion upon Seclusion)
12
88.
13
Defendants social media accounts, including email applications, networking
14
platforms, and messaging applications, pertained to Defendants private affairs and concerns.
15
89.
16
17
Defendants protected their social media accounts with passwords and authentication
methods sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in those accounts.
18
90.
19
By obtaining unauthorized and wide-ranging access to these accounts, Plaintiff
20
intentionally intruded upon Defendants private affairs.
21
91.
22
Plaintiffs intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
23
92.
24
As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs intrusion upon Defendants private
25
affairs, Defendants have suffered offense and anguish, resulting in damages in an amount to
26
be proven at trial.
Page
20 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Bad Faith/Attorneys Fees, ORS 646.467(1) & ORS 20.105.)
93.
4
Plaintiffs trade secrets claims are meritless and have been made entirely without any
5
6
7
8
9
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 Plaintiffs 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.
10
Plaintiffs trade secret claims also have an improper purpose. The Complaint was
11
12
13
14
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.
15
Due to Plaintiffs bad faith in filing and maintaining trade secrets claims, Defendants
16
17
18
are entitled to reasonable attorney fees pursuant to either or both ORS 646.467(1) and ORS
20.105.
FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM
19
(Declaratory Relief ORS 28.020-28.030; ORS 28.080; ORS 653.295)
20
96.
21
Nikes Covenant Not to Compete agreements with the Designers are unenforceable
22
23
because they are overreaching and do not protect any legitimate interest of Nike.
97.
24
The Designers noncompetition agreements include Competition Restriction
25
26
Page
clauses which state: During EMPLOYEEs employment by NIKE, under the terms of any
21 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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.
8
9
The Designers signed additional employee invention and secrecy agreements, and
their noncompetition agreements contained clauses including Return of Protected
10
Information, Unauthorized Use, and Non-Solicitation/Non-Recruitment. These other
11
provisions provide more than adequate protection of any legitimate interests. The
12
Competition Restriction clauses in the noncompetition agreements serve no purpose, save
13
for unlawfully stifling fair competition and crippling the Designers ability to obtain
14
employment elsewhere.
15
99.
16
17
Neither thwarting competition nor hamstringing a former employees ability to work

or seek new employment is a legitimate interest of an employer.
18
100.
19
Nikes assertion that Competition Restriction clauses protect against the
20
misappropriation of trade secrets is not a legitimate interest or concern here. Design skills,
21
concepts, visions, and creative ability are not trade secrets. The more technical
22
confidential information alleged as trade secrets is actually already prevalent in the industry,
23
so it is not a trade secret and replication by a competitor would be unnecessary. Furthermore,
24
in the Designers industry, competitors do not benefit from the use of anothers alleged
25
trade secrets. The use of a competitors trade secrets in this industry would be the
26
antithesis of a designers creative mission to develop new, fresh, innovative concepts. The
Page
22 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
Designers and adidas would not benefit from copying Nikes product lines, product launches,
or related information. Nike cannot allege or prove that the Designers inevitably used or will
use Nikes 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
10
legitimate restrictive covenant permissible in Oregon and if enforced literally would produce
11
oppressive results, including making it virtually impossible for a Nike employee to seek
12
future employment with a competitor. This violates both the public interest and specifically
13
the Designers interest in earning a living.
14
102.
15
The practical effect of this clause is to handcuff employees to Nike, preventing them
16
from working in the athletic industry. Nike is seeking to apply it to the Designers to punish
17
them for seeking future employment from adidas, even beyond the noncompetition period.
18
103.
19
The Extension of Time clauses in the Covenants Not to Compete are also
20
unreasonable, void, and unenforceable. Extension of time restrictions in noncompetition
21
agreements are not authorized by Oregon law. And, any alleged trade secrets which Nike
22
claims the Designers maintain in their possession have short shelf life. These alleged trade
23
secrets will soon be disclosed or already have been disclosed by Nike. In the fast-moving,
24
trendy world of design, the information will be stale and outdated in a year; thus, a time
25
extension is not warranted.
26
///
Page
23 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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.
8
9
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.
10
106.
11
Defendant Miners noncompetition agreement should be deemed void under ORS
12
653.295 because his promotion to Senior Footwear Designer did not constitute bona fide
13
advancement.
14
107.
15
There is a justiciable controversy between the parties that would result in specific
16
relief to the Designers through the binding decree of court granting the above requested
17
declaratory relief.
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
Page
24 -
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (503) 323-9105
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.
DATED this 17th day of March, 2015.
:ARK}WITZH
5
6
Mat ew A. Levin, OSB No. 003054

MattLevin@ MarkowitzHerbold.com
Jeffrey M . Edelson, OSB No. 880407
JeffEdelson@ MarkowitzBerbold.com
Steffan Alexander, OSB No. 130258
SteffanAlexander@ MarkowitzHerbold.com
Anna H. Makowski , OSB No. 135530
AnnaMakowski@ MarkowitzHerbold.com
7
8
9
10
11
12
426908
Of Attorneys for Defendants Denis Dekovic,

Marc Dolce, and Mark Miner
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page
25 -
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD
PC

1211 SW FIFTH AVENU E
PORTLA ND , OREG ON 97204-3730
(503) 295-3085
Fax: (50 3) 323-91OS
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
~ U.S. Mail
Facsimile
Hand Delivery
~ Email
ajpedersen@stoel .com;
laura.rosenbaum@stoel.com;
ryan.gibson@stoel.com
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
~U.S. Mail
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
Facsimile
Hand Delivery
[g) Email
stwomey@gibsondunn.com
jreeves@gibsondunn.com
jtthomas@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATED this 17th day of March, 2015 .
Matt ew A. evin, OSB No . 003054

Attorney for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Nike v. Dekovic Et Al. Answer and Counterclaims

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Nike v. Dekovic Et Al. Answer and Counterclaims

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation,

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND

DENIS DEKOVIC, an individual; MARC

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

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

responsibility and with the ability to share ideas with consumers.

the remainder of the allegations in these paragraphs.

With respect to paragraph 6, the Designers deny Nikes mischaracterizations of their

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

devices in accordance with the parties agreement.

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

were not inconsistent with Nike policy or practice.

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

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Designers deny the remainder of the allegations in these paragraphs.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 10 and 11.

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

Defendants admit paragraph 14.

Defendant Dekovic denies paragraph 15.

Defendant Dolce denies paragraph 16.

Defendant Miner denies paragraph 17.

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

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

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

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

Defendant Miner admits that he worked as a footwear designer in Nikes Global

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 26 and 27.

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 32-33.

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

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

Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 36-38.

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

Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 40.

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

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 46.

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 56.

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

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

Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 58.

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

Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 60.

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

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

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

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

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 66-67.

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

Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph.

Defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 69-70.

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

DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

the allegations in paragraph 75.