Navico, Inc. v. Garmin International, Inc.

Navico, Inc. sued Garmin International, Inc., Aaron Coleman, Jason Detring, Jeffrey Hanoch, John Matson, Kevin Brown and Lance Lybarger claiming:



1. Navico is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tulsa County.



2. Defendant Garmin International, Inc. ("Garmin”) is a Kansas corporation with its principal place of business in Olathe, Kansas.



3. Defendants Aaron Coleman, Jason Detring, Jeffrey Hanoch, John Matson, Kevin Brown, and Lance Lybarger are individuals and residents of Oklahoma. These individual Defendants are hereinafter referred to as the "Departing Engineers”.



4. The allegations giving rise to the claims set forth below occurred, in part, in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and venue is proper pursuant to 12 Okla. Stat.l33 and 137.



I. BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING NAVICO



5. Navico was Formed in 2006 as a fusion of two of the most important companies involved in marine electronics, Simrad Yachting and Lowrance Electronics. Today, Navico is the world's largest marine electronics company and is the parent company to leading marine electronics brands, Lowrance, Simrad and B&G.



6. Of particular relevance to this lawsuit is the Lowrance brand of marine electronics (Lowrance, at times, is hereinafter referred to interchangeably as "Navico”). Lowrance was started in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1957, at which time it introduced the world's first sport fishing sonar instruments capable of' locating individual fish.



7. Since those early days, the Lowranee brand, now under the umbrella of Navico, has been largely dedicated to the development of recreational freshwater, marine sonar products, including fish finders, sonar imaging and charting products, hereinafter referred to as "freshwater sonar products.”



8. Navico's technology with regard to the freshwater sonar products business has developed tremendously since its founding days in 1957. Among other things, Navico has developed a substantial selection of advanced but nonetheless reasonably priced and easy to use fish finders and fish finder/OPS devices.



9. While numerous companies are engaged in the business of developing and marketing marine sonar devices, Navico's recreational, Freshwater sonar products are highly specialized, and unique to the industry. They juxtapose sophisticated signal processing into low- end devices, so as to create affordable. high quality fish finders that are unparalleled in the industry. Navico sets the standard thr this kind of product. Navico has only one substantial competitor in the freshwater sonar product market, and the quality of its competitor's product is far below that of Navico.



10. Since the inception of Lowrancc in 1957, the research and development of Navico's freshwater sonar products has been performed by engineers located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The freshwater sonar products contain components including a sonar transducer, receiver/amplifier, user interFace, signal processor, and related software and operating system. The research and development over the years has focused on such things as sonar, signal processing for two separate types of products. In order to make this product work and marketable on a relatively inexpensive basis, the full system has to be optimized to allow it to work on lower cost hardware platforms without sacrificing performance. Navico's methodology of achieving this result is not known in the industry and is a trade secret.



11. Until recently, Navico's research and development department in Tulsa consisted of thirty two (32) persons, including managers, engineers, and technicians. Out of the research and development department, seventeen (17) were engineers. Among those engineers, fifteen (15) dedicated the majority of their work to research and development of Navico's freshwater sonar products.



II. BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING GARMIN



12. Garmin was started in 1989 as a global positioning system ("GPS”) manufacturer. It has expanded into other areas involving navigation, communications and information devices. Except for its subsidiary Garmin-AT, which is involved with aviation technologies and was a result of the acquisition of UPS Aviation Technologies, Inc., Garmin's only significant facility located in the United States is in Olathe, Kansas. Garmin has approximately 3,400 U.S. employees, including approximately 600 engineers in Olathe, Kansas.



13. In 2010 Garmin announced its intent to "re-enter” the freshwater fish finding market and announced a new series of inland marine sonar devices.



14. Notwithstanding Garmin's announcement, its new line of inland marine sonar instruments has only acquired a small share of the recreational freshwater fish finding market, and is not a serious competitor of Navico. The quality of the Garmin freshwater sonar product is far below that of Navico. Garmin's freshwater fish finder does not meet the performance expectation of the freshwater angler. Among other things, the fish finder lacks narrow beam sonar imaging capability.



15. Because of years of research and development leading up to the production of high quality, economically priced freshwater fish finders and sonar products, Navico enjoys a fair, competitive advantage over Garmin. However, that will soon change unless this court enjoins Garmin from continuing with its actions to raid Navico's research and development department and tap into the confidential information and trade secrets that Navico's engineers possess.



III. FACTS RECARDING EMPLOYEE RAIDING



16. As stated above, Navico employs fifteen engineers in Tulsa, Oklahoma who are dedicated primarily to research and development of freshwater sonar products. Navico has learned that six of those engineers have been recruited by and are leaving to go to work for Garmin. They are scheduled to begin work at Garmin on March 19, 2012.



17. All of the Departing Engineers were hired by Navico directly out of school. None of the schools they attended had degrees in marine electronics. Moreover, none of the Departing Engineers came to Navico with formal training in sonar signal processing, user interface, or transducer/acoustic backgrounds. They were not only trained by Navico, but have worked their entire careers at Navico. They are privy to most, if not all of Navico's confidential and trade secret information relating to Navico's development of and future plans for its freshwater sonar products. Each of the Departing Engineers has signed a patent, trade secret and copyright

agreement pursuant to which he has agreed to protect and maintain all trade secrets and confidential information of Navico. The Departing Engineers consist of the following:



(a) Aaron Coleman, after working as an intern during the summers for

Navico, began full time employment at Navieo in 1998. I-Ic was hired directly from the

University of Missouri-Rolla, where he obtained an electrical engineering degree. He

was hired as a Design Engineer. At the time of his resignation, he was the Principal

Software Design Engineer in the Research and Development Department.



(b) Jason Detring was hired by Navico on January 8, 2007, also from the

University of Missouri-Rolla, where he obtained a Bachelors of Science in Computer

Science. He was hired as a Design Engineer. At the time of his resignation, he was a

Software Design Engineer I in the Research and Development Department.



(c) Jeffrey Hanoch worked as an intern for Navico from May 1986 through June 1990. He was hired on June 29, 1990 directly from Oklahoma University where he obtained an Electrical Engineering degree. At the time of his resignation, he was the Principal Electrical Design Engineer in the Research and Development Department.



(d) John Matson was hired by Navico in 2002. He was hired directly from

Oklahoma State University where he obtained a Bachelors of Science and Electrical

Engineering/Computer Design and Mathematics. He was hired as a Design

Engineer/Sonar. At the time oF his resignation, he was Senior Electrical Design

Engineer.



(e) Kevin Brown was hired by Navico in 2006. He was hired directly from Oklahoma State University where he obtained a Masters Degree in Computer Science.



He was a Bachelors Degree in Mathematics and Computer Science. He was hired as a

Design Engineer. At the time of his resignation, he was a Software Design Engineer II.



(f) Lance Lybarger was hired by Navico in 2003. He was hired directly from

Oklahoma State University where he obtained a Bachelors of Science degree in Electrical

Engineering. I-Ic was hired as a Design Engineer I. At the time of his resignation, he was

a Senior Software Design Engineer.



18. Out of the thousands of engineers and computer scientists looking for work in this country, it is not coincidental that Garmin, looking to expand its presence in the freshwater sonar product market, hired six engineers/computer scientists working at Navico, who were dedicated to the research and development of Navico's freshwater sonar products.



19. Upon information and belief Garmin approached the Departing Engineers through its agents, who were two former employees of Navieo. Garmin's agents were very familiar with the scope of work in which the Departing Engineers were engaged. Garmin knew that these engineers participated in Navico's highly confidential research and development relating to its freshwater sonar products, and that the Departing Engineers were fully capable of bringing that understanding and specific knowledge to Garmin.



20. Indeed, Garmin has made little effort to conceal its raid on Navico's freshwater sonar product's research and development department, and its intent to use these Departing Engineers to develop a similar freshwater sonar product. It has offered compensation to, at least, some of the Departing Engineers significantly above market rates. In addition to the Departing Engineers, Garmin attempted to hire at least one additional Navico engineer, who decided to stay with Navico.



21. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the fact that Garmin's research and development department is located in Olathe. Kansas (except for the avionics department in Salem, Oregon), Garmin has even promised the Departing Engineers that they may continue to reside and work in Tulsa. Navico has learned that Garmin is seeking office space to lease which would accommodate a boat that would be useful for the development of freshwater sonar products.



22. Clearly, Garmin has hired thc Departing Engineers for the purpose of acquiring access to Navico's research and development and strategic planning relating to its freshwater sonar products and imaging, so that it can utilize that knowledge and information to develop its own freshwater sonar products.



IV. NAVICO'S TRADE SECRETS



23. All of the Departing Engineers are involved in the creation of, continuing improvements to, and plans for Navico's freshwater sonar products, in some manner. The knowledge and information they possess is not antiquated. It consists of historical and current information, as well as knowledge of Navico's strategic planning, that can be utilized to compete against Navico now and in the future. The technology surrounding the freshwater sonar products, including the sonar development is vital and unique to Navico. Without limitation, the trade secrets and confidential information known and retained by these Departing Engineers includes the following:



(a) Knowledge regarding Navico's sonar and charting, including its methods for signal processing directly related to sonar development fur targct separation, noise rejection, gain control, search, lock and recovering of determining depth;



(b) Knowledge regarding "Blue”, a proprietary operating system that some of the Departing Engineers developed several years ago, which they have continue to refine,

that involves Navico's medium to lower cost base products utilize. This operating system allows Navico to be competitive in the lower cost base products with better functionality due to the optimized operating system running on lower cost integrated circuits. Blue has been optimized further and applied to lower integrated circuit platforms and called either "Indigo”, or "Green”;



(c) Knowledge regarding methodology relating to "Structure Map®”, Navico's methodology for taking sonar imaging and overlaying that information on a chart, in order to reference undcrwater formations, together with information relating to the development o C Structure Map®, arid of the Navico patents pending regarding displaying Structure Map type images on a Multi Function Display; and



(d) Knowledge regarding the dcvelopment of and future pians for StructureScantM, a Navico product which consists of two sonar views: sidescan and downscan, used in conjunction with a built-in broadband sounder, which produces a panoramic underwater view.



(e) General knowledge relative to the development of software that has allowed Navico to create operating systems that function effectively on lower cost hardware.



24. The above knowledge and information, specific to the research and development of Navico's freshwater sonar products, is protected and proprietary trade secret information belonging to Navico. It is not simply the knowledge and skill possessed by experienced engineers. If that were the case. Garmin could have hired any number of skilled engineers to work in Olathe, rather than raiding the research and development department of Navico, and setting up a new facility in Tulsa.



25. With or without the physical files of Navico, the Departing Engineers have within their minds knowledge unique to Navico and specific as to the development of the freshwater sonar products. Knowledge of this technology, including knowledge as to the successes and failures experienced in the development of the freshwater sonar products can only be possessed by those engineers who participated in and were responsible for Navico's development of the product.



26. The Departing Engineers also have specific knowledge as to Navico's strategic planning and engineering plans, including without limitation. Navico's strategic planning for the next generation of freshwater sonar products. 'I'his information also consists of trade secrets and confidential information belonging to Navico.



27. All of these trade secrets are not known in the industry. Navico protects its trade secrets by having its engineers and the employees in the research and development groups sign agreements acknowledging Navico's ownership oF these trade secrets, and apprising each individual of his or her responsibility to maintain confidentiality. Even within Navico, trade secret information is not widely distributed, and is generally known only by those who have participated in the development of the product.



V. DAMAGE TO NAVICO/BENEFIT TO GARMIN



28. Each of the Departing Engineers contains knowledge as to the research and development and plans for the future development of Navico' s freshwater sonar products which, if placed in the hands of a competitor, could he extremely damaging to Navico. However, working together, the Departing Engineers possess the capability of collectively utilizing the knowledge and information gained speci[ically from the development of Navico's freshwater sonar product to produce a freshwater sonar product comparable to that of Navico within months. Without engineers possessing Navico's trade secret information, it could take Garmin

years to create the same commercially competitive product, even assuming that Garmin can arrive at technological solutions which, up to now, it has not demonstrated the ability to do.



29. Navico further estimates that Garmin's raid on Navico's engineering department (approximately forty percent (40%) of the engineers primarily dedicated to research and development of Ireshwater sonar products) win cause the efficiency of Navico's research and development department to decrease by as much as fifly percent (5 0%) for the next six months. Navico estimates that it will take several months to fully recover from the damage done to its research and development department. By that time, with the aid of the Departing Engineers, Garmin would be fully vested and competitive in the freshwater sonar product market; all as a result of its raid on Navico's research and development department.



COUNT ONE



VIOLATION OF UNIFORM TRADE SECRET ACT



30. Navico re-alleges and restates the foregoing allegations.



31. By virtue of the foregoing, Garmin, by accessing the trade secrets held by the Departing Engineers has demonstrated a clear intent to misappropriate trade secrets belonging to Navico and to use those trade secrets for the benefit of Garmin in the development of its freshwater sonar products.



32. Clearly, Garmin, willfully and intentionally intends to use Navico's trade secrets for the benefit of Garmin. However, regardless of any such intent, it is inconceivable that the Departing Engineers could go to work for Garmin in the development of its freshwater sonar products and not use the trade secrets known and retained by them for the benefit of Garmin.



33. If the Departing Engineers are allowed to work at Garmin and assist with the research and development of its freshwater sonar product, they will inevitably use, disclose and rely upon trade secrets that they obtained from and took from Navico.



34. Under the Uniform Trade Secret Act, an injunction is proper upon a showing of actual or threatened misappropriation.



35. As more specifically set forth above, if Garmin and the Departing Engineers are not immediately restrained and enjoined from working at Garmin in the research and development of freshwater sonar products, Navico will be irreparably harmed by the disclosure of its trade secrets and the use of those trade secrets to the benefit of Garmin.



36. The nature of the damages incurred by Navico through the misconduct of Garmin and the Departing Engineers is and will continue to be unique, irreparable and immediate as set forth above, and will afford Navieo no adequate remedy at law because of the unique nature of the damages and injuries.



WHEREFORE, based upon the above, Navico respectfully requests the Court enter a Temporary Restraining Order and a preliminary injunction during the pendency of this litigation and, thereafter, a permanent injunction against the Defendants as follows:



(a) That the Departing Engineers be restrained and enjoined from providing services or performing any work for Garmin, that in any manner, directly or indirectly, aides or assists Garmin in the development of its freshwater sonar products, or other freshwater marine electronic and sonar technology;



(b) That Garmin and the Departing Engineers be restrained and enjoined from using, disclosing or transmitting for any purpose, any of the trade secrets or confidential information that the Departing Engineers learned during their employment at Navico; and



(c) That the Court enter such other orders as it deems necessary and appropriate to enforce the requested injunctive relief, and to protect Navico from misappropriation of its trade secrets, and that it award Navico its fees and costs incurred herein.



COUNT TWO



TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS

INTERESTS AND CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS



37. Navico re-alleges and restates the foregoing allegations.



38. Garmin's actions were designed to induce the Departing Engineers to breach their obligations to Navico to maintain and protect Navico's trade secrets, and, at the same time, to substantially damage Navico's department dedicated to the research and development of its freshwater marine products.



39. Garmin's actions described above were committed with the intent to injure, harm or infringe upon Navico's business

and its relationship with its employees.



40. Garmin acted intentionally, with malice, with reckless disregard for Navico's rights and without sufficient

justification or excuse.



41. As a direct and proximate result of Garmin's tortious interference with Navico's economic business and contractual interests, rights and relations, Navico has suffered or will suffer damages in an amount in excess of $75,000, said amount to be proven at trial.



WHEREFORE, Navico prays this Court award it actual damages, in an amount to be proven at trial punitive damages, and interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.



COUNT THREE



UNFAIR COMPETITION



42. Navico re-alleges and restates the foregoing allegations contained in paragraphs

1-42 of the Petition.



43. As more specifically set forth above, Garmin has hired approximately 40 percent of Navico's engineers working on the research and development of Navico's freshwater sonar products. Garmin's actions were designed to misappropriate Navico's trade secrets and, at the same time, to substantially damage Navico's department dedicated to the research and development of its freshwater marine products.



44. Garmin's actions constitute unfair competition.



45. Garmin acted intentionally, with malice, with reckless disregard for Navico's rights and without sufficient justification or excuse. As a direct and proximate result of Gannin's actions, Navico has suffered or will suffer damages in excess of $75,000, said amount to be proven at trial.



WHEREFORE, Navico prays this Court award it actual punitive damages in excess of $75,000, in an amount to be proven at trial, together with interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and for such other relielas this Court deems just and equitable.



Defendant John Matson appeared and answered as follows:



I. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the tmth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



2. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Verified Petitioq ancL..) therefore denies the same.



3. Defendant Matson admits that Aaron Coleman, Jason Detring, Jeffrey Hanoch, John Matson, Kevin Brown, and Lance Lybarger are individuals and residents of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



4. Defendant Matson admits that this Court possesses jurisdiction over the parties and is the proper venue for the action, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING NAVICO



5. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



6. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations

contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



7. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



8. Defendant Matson admits that Plaintiff has developed a substantial selection of fish finders and fish finder/OPS devices, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to tbrm a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



9. Defendant Matson admits that numerous companies are engaged in the business of developing and marketing marine sonar devices, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



10. Defendant Matson admits that some freshwater sonar products contain components including a sonar transducer, receiver/amplifier, user interface, signal processor, and related software and operating system, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



II. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING GARMIN



12. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



13. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



14. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



15. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



FACTS REGARDING EMPLOYEE RAIDING



16. Defendant Matson admits that he was scheduled to begin working for Defendant Ga.rmin on March 19, 2012, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



17. Defendant Matson admits that he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering/Computer Design and Mathematics from Oklahoma State University, he was hired by Lowranee in 2002 as Design Engineer/Sonar, he was a Senior Electrical Design Engineer at the time of his resignation from Navico, and each of the Departing Engineers signed an agreement not to disclose Navico's confidential information or trade secrets. Defendant Matson denies that the Departing Engineers are privy to all or most of Navico's confidential and trade secret information relating to Navico's development of and future plans for its freshwater sonar products and that none of the Departing Engineers came to Navico with formal training in sona.r signal processing, user interface, or transducer/acoustic backgrounds, Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition, including its subparts, and therefore denies the same.



18. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



19. Defendant Matson denies that Defendant Garmin approached the Departing Engineers through its agents. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same,



20. Defendant Matson admits that Defendant Garmin attempted to hire at least one additional Navico engineer, who decided to stay with Navico. Defendant Matson denies that Defendant Garmin raided Navico's freshwater sonar product research and development department or that he was offered compensation significantly above market rates. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



21. Defendant Matson denies that Defendant Garmin promised the Departing Engineers that they may continue to reside and work in Tulsa. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



22. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



NAVICO'S TRADE SECRETS



23. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition, including its subparts.



24. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



25. Defendant Matson denies that knowledge of Navico's freshwater sonar products is only possessed by those engineers who participated in and were responsible for Navico's development of those products. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



26. Defendant Matson denies that the Departing Engineers have specific knowledge as to Navico's strategic planning and engineering plans. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



27. Defendant Matson denies that all of the alleged trade secrets identified by Navico are not known in the industry. Defendant Matson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



DAMAGE TO NAVICO/BENEFIT TO GARMIN



28. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



29. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



COUNT ONE



VIOLATION OF UNIFORM TRADE SECRET ACT



30. Defendant Matson incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1 through 29 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



31. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



32. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



33. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



34. Paragraph 34 consists of a legal conclusion for which no response is necessary. However, insofar as a response is deemed necessary, Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



35. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



36. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including the subsequent "WHEREFORE” paragraph. In particular, Defendant Matson denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief

requested.



COUNT TWO



TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS INTERESTS AND CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS



37. Defendant Matson incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1 through 36 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



38, Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



39. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



40. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



41. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition, including the

subsequent "WHEREFORE” paragraph. In particular, Defendant Matson denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested,



COUNT THREE2



UNFAIR COMPETITION



42. Defendant Matson incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1 through 41 of Plaintiff's Verified

Petition.



43. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition,



44. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



45. Defendant Matson denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition, including the subsequent "WHEREFORE” paragraph. In particular, Defendant Matson denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.



AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES



1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Matson for which relief can be granted.



2. Defendant Matson would not inevitably disclose any information qualifying as a trade secret of Plaintiff under

Oklahoma law by working for a competitor of Plaintiff



3. Defendant Matson has neither misappropriated nor threatened to misappropriate any information qualifying as a trade secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law.



4. Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant Matson possesses any information qualifying as a trade secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law,



5. Defendant Matson denies that the information that Plaintiff seeks to protect through this action constitutes a trade secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law.



6, Plaintiff has suffered no compensable damages in connection with Defendant Matson's resignation or subsequent employment by Defendant Garmin.



7. Defendant Matson's employment with Plaintiff was at will and could be terminated by Defendant Matson at any time and for any reason.



8. Defendant Matson's decision to resign from Navico and to accept employment with Defendant Garmin was made for legitimate personal and professional reasons in no way connected to any actual, threatened, or intended violation of Navico's rights under Oklahoma law.



9. Plaintiff has failed to show that injunctive relief is appropriate in this case.

10. Plaintiffs claim for injunctive or equitable relief is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.



11. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages, if any.



12. Insofar as Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including the claims contained therein, seeks to prevent Defendant Matson from engaging in trade, or business, Plaintiffs Verified Petition is contrary to Oklahoma's favoring competition and employee mobility and prohibiting restraints employer and employee.



13. Because discovery has not yet commenced in this action, Defendant Matson reserves the right to add additional defenses as discovery progresses.



WHEREFORE. Defendant Matson respectfully requests that Plaintiff take nothing, that the Court award this Defendant his costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with his defense in this action, and that the Court award Defendant Matson any additional relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.

and requests for relief his lawful profession, law and public policy on trade between an





Defendant Jason Detring appeared and answered as follows:



1 Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



2. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition,and therefore denies the same.



3. Defendant Detring admits that Aaron Coleman, Jason Detring, Jeffrey Hanoch, John Matson, Kevin Brown, and Lance Lybarger are individuals and residents of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



4. Defendant Detring admits that this Court possesses jurisdiction over the parties arid is the proper venue for the action, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING NAVICO



5. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



6. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



7, Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



8. Defendant Detring admits that Plaintiff has developed a substantial selection of fish finders and fish finder/OPS devices, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



9. Defendant Detring admits that numerous companies are engaged in the business of developing and marketing marine sonar devices, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



10. Defendant Detring admits that some freshwater sonar products contain components including a sonar transducer, receiver/amplifier, user interface, signal processor, and related software and operating system, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition,



11. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING GARMIN



12. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



13. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



14. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



5. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



FACTS REGARDING EMPLOYEE RAIDING



16. Defendant Detring admits that he was scheduled to begin working for Defendant Garmin on March 19, 2012, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



17. Defendant Detring admits that he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of Missouri-Rolla, he was hired by Navico as a Design Engineer on January 8, 2007, he was a Software Design Engineer I in Navico's Research and Development Department at the time of his resignation, and each of the Departing Engineers signed an agreement not to disclose Navico's confidential information or trade secrets. Defendant Detring denies that the Departing Engineers are privy to all or most of Navico's confidential and trade secret information relating to Navico's development of and future plans for its freshwater sonar products and that none of the Departing Engineers came to Navico with formal training in sonar signal processing, user interface, or transducer/acoustic backgrounds. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including its subparts, and therefore denies the same.



18. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



19. Defendant Detring denies that Defendant Garmin approached the Departing Engineers through its agents. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



20. Defendant Detring admits that Defendant Garmin attempted to hire at least one additional Navico engineer, who decided to stay with Navico. Defendant Detring denies that Defendant Garmin raided Navico's freshwater sonar product research and development department or that he was offered compensation significantly above market rates. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



21. Defendant Detring denies that Defendant Garmin promised the Departing Engineers that they may continue to reside and work in Tulsa. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



22. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



NAVICO'S TRADE SECRETS



23. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition, including its subparts.



24. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



25. Defendant Detring denies that knowledge of Navico's freshwater sonar products is only possessed by those engineers who participated in and were responsible for Navico's development of those products. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



26. Defendant Detring denies that the Departing Engineers have specific knowledge as to Navico's strategic planning and engineering plans. Defendant Detring is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



27. Defendant Detring denies that all of the alleged trade secrets identified by Navico are not known in the industry, Defendant Detring is without know'edge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



DAMAGE TO NAVICO/BENEFIT TO GARMIN



28. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



29. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



COUNT ONE



VIOLATION OF UNIFORM TRADE SECRET ACT



30. Defendant Detring incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1 through 29 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



31. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



32. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



33, Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



34. Paragraph 34 consists of a legal conclusion for which no response is necessary. However, insofar as a response is deemed necessary, Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



35. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



36. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including the subsequent "WHEREFORE” paragraph. In particular, Defendant Detring denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.



COUNT TWO



TORTEOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS INTERESTS AND CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS



37. Defendant Detring incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1 through 36 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



38. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



39. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



40. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



41. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including the

subsequent "WHEREFORE” paragraph. In particular, Defendant Detring denies that Plaintiff is entitled to my relief requested.



COUNT THREE



UNFAIR COMPETITION



42. Defendant Detring incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs I through 41 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



43. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



44. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



45. Defendant Detring denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition, including the subsequent "WHEREFORE” paragraph. In particular, Defendant Detring denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.



AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES



1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Detring for which relief can be granted.



2. Defendant Detring would not inevitably disclose any information qualifying as a trade secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law by working for a competitor of Plaintiff



3. Defendant Detring has neither misappropriated nor threatened to misappropriate any information qualifying as a trade

secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law.



4. Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant Detring possesses any information qualifying as a trade secret of Plaintiff

under Oklahoma law.



5. Defendant Detring denies that the information that Plaintiff seeks to protect through this action constitutes a trade secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law.



6. Plaintiff has suffered no compensable damages in connection with Defendant Detring's resignation or subsequent employment by Defendant Garmin.



7. Defendant Detring's employment with Plaintiff was at will and could be terminated by Defendant Detring at any time and for any reason.



8. Defendant Detring's decision to resign from Navico and to accept employment with Defendant Garmin was made for legitimate personal and professional reasons in no way connected to any actual, threatened, or intended violation of Navico's rights under Oklahoma law.



9. Plaintiff has failed to show that injunctive relief is appropriate in this case.



10. Plaintiffs claim for injunctive or equitable relief is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.



11. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages, if any.



12. Insofar as Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including the claims contained therein, seeks to prevent Defendant Detring from engaging in trade, or business, Plaintiffs Verified Petition is contrary to Oklahoma's favoring competition and employee mobility and prohibiting restraints employer and employee.



13. Because discovery has not yet commenced in this action, Defendant Detring reserves the right to add additional defenses as discovery progresses.



WHEREFORE, Defendant Detring respectfully requests that Plaintiff take nothing, that the Court award this Defendant his costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with his defense in this action, and that the Court award Defendant

and requests for relief his lawful profession, law and public policy on trade between an

Detring any additional relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.



Defendant Aaron Coleman appeared and answered as follows:



1. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same,



2. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Verified Petitioii and therefore denies the same.



3. Defendant Coleman admits that Aaron Coleman, Jason Detring, Jeffrey Hanoch, John Matson, Kevin Brown, and Lance Lybarger are individuals and residents of Oklahoma, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of

Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



4. Defendant Coleman admits that this Court possesses jurisdiction over the parties and is the proper venue for the action, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING NAVICO



5. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



6. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



7. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



8. Defendant Coleman admits that Plaintiff has developed a substantial selection of fish finders and fish finder/GPS devices, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



9. Defendant Coleman admits that numerous companies are engaged in the business of developing and marketing marine sonar devices, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



10. Defendant Coleman admits that some freshwater sonar products contain components including a sonar transducer, receiver/amplifier, user interface, signal processor, and related software and operating system, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 ofPlaintiffs Verified Petition.



11. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



BACKGROUND FACTS REGARDING GARMIN



12. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



13. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



14. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



15. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



FACTS REGARDING EMPLOYEE RAIDING



16. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



17. Defendant Coleman admits that he obtained a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla, he was hired by Lowrance in 1998 as a Design Engineer, he was a Principal Software Design Engineer in Navico's Research and Development Department at the time of his resignation, and each of the Departing Engineers signed an

agreement not to disclose Navico's confidential information or trade secrets. Defendant Coleman denies that the Departing Engineers are privy to all or most of Navico' s confidential and trade secret information relating to Navico's development of and future plans for its freshwater sonar products and that none of the Departing Engineers came to Navico with formal training in sonar signal processing, user interface, or transducer/acoustic backgrounds. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including its subparts, and therefore denies the same.



18. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



19, Defendant Coleman denies that Defendant Garmin approached the Departing Engineers through its agents. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



20. Defendant Coleman admits that Defendant Garmin attempted to hire at least one additional Navico engineer, who decided to stay with Navico. Defendant Coleman denies that Defendant Garmin raided Navico's freshwater sonar product research and development department or that he was offered compensation significantly above market rates. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



21. Defendant Coleman denies that Defendant Garmin promised the Departing Engineers that they may continue to reside and work in Tulsa. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the tmth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition and therefore denies the same,



22. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition,



NAVICO'S TRADE SECRETS



23. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition, including its subparts.



24. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



25. Defendant Coleman denies that knowledge of Navico's freshwater sonar products is only possessed by those engineers who participated in and were responsible for Navico's development of those products. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



26. Defendant Coleman denies that the Departing Engineers have specific knowledge as to Navico's strategic planning and engineering plans. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition and therefore denies the same.



27. Defendant Coleman denies that all of the alleged trade secrets identified by Navico are not known in the industry. Defendant Coleman is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition and therefore denies the same,



DAMAGE TO NAVICO/BENEFIT TO GARMIN



28. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



29. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



COUNT ONE



VIOLATION OF UNIFORM TRADE SECRET ACT



30. Defendant Coleman incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1 through 29 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



31. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



32. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



33. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



34. Paragraph 34 consists of a legal conclusion for which no response is necessary. However, insofar as a response is deemed necessary, Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



35. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



36. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including the subsequent "WHEREFORE” paragraph. In particular, Defendant Coleman denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.



COUNT TWO



TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS INTERESTS AND CONTRACTUAL

RIGHTS



37. Defendant Coleman incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1 through 36 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition.



38. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



39. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



40, Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



41. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including the subsequent "WFIEREFORE” paragraph. In particular, Defendant Coleman denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.



COUNT THREE



UNFAIR COMPETITION



42. Defendant Coleman incorporates by reference his responses to Paragraphs I through 41 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition,



43. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs Verified Petition.



44. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff” s Verified Petition.



45. Defendant Coleman denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff's Verified Petition, including the

subsequent "WHEREFORE” paragraph. In particular, Defendant Coleman denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested.



AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES



1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Coleman for which relief can be granted.



2. Defendant Coleman would not inevitably disclose any information qualifying as a trade secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law by working for a competitor of Plaintiff.



3. Defendant Coleman has neither misappropriated nor threatened to misappropriate any information qualifying as a trade secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law.



4. Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant Coleman possesses any information qualifying as a trade secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law.



5, Defendant Coleman denies that the information that Plaintiff seeks to protect through this action constitutes a

trade secret of Plaintiff under Oklahoma law.



6. Plaintiff has suffered no compensable damages in connection with Defendant Coleman's resignation or subsequent employment by Defendant Garmin.



7. Defendant Coleman's employment with Plaintiff was at will and could be terminated by Defendant Coleman at any time and for any reason.



8. Defendant Coleman's decision to resign from Navico and to accept employment with Defendant Garmin was made for legitimate personal and professional reasons in no way connected to any actual, threatened, or intended violation of Navico's rights under Oklahoma law.



Plaintiff has failed to show that injunctive relief is appropriate in this case.



10. Plaintiffs claim for injunctive or equitable relief is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.



11 Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages, if any.



12. Insofar as Plaintiffs Verified Petition, including the claims and requests for relief contained therein, seeks to

prevent Defendant Coleman from engaging in his lawful profession, trade, or business, Plaintiff Verified Petition is contrary to Oklahoma's law and public policy favoring competition and employee mobility and prohibiting restraints on trade between an employer and employee.



13. Because discovery has not yet commenced in this action, Defendant Coleman reserves the right to add additional defenses as discovery progresses.



WHEREFORE, Defendant Coleman respectfully requests that Plaintiff take nothing, that the Court award this Defendant his costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with his defense in this action, and that the Court award Defendant Coleman any additional relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.

Settled and dismissed with prejudice.