Do you have a requirement for number of words? Is this the case that was in the Florida District Court of Appeals in 1989?
Sure, go ahead.
OK I will take a look at it.
OK, I get what your professor is looking for. Give me some time to read the case and work on it and I will get it done for you.
Facts: Appellant worked in the advertising and editorial departments of a local entertainment magazine. Shortly after the magazine's corporate owner was bought by Appellee, Appellant left the publication to start a competing magazine using a list of advertisers and distributors that he had generated while working for Appellee's predecessor. Appellee sued Appellant for both injunctive relief and damages, claiming that the information used by Appellant in his new endeavor were trade secrets now owned by Appellee. The lower court determined that the lists were trade secrets and the harm suffered by Appellee warranted injunctive relief. Appellant appealed this order to the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida.Issue: Whether the lower court erred in concluding that lists of advertisers and distributors containing publicly available information was a trade secret entitled to injunctive protection.Rule: The appellate court held that because the lists at issue were not the "product of any great expense or effort" or expertise and contained information that was accessible using publicly available sources, they were not protected trade secrets.
Was this what you were looking for?
Sure. In practice it can be done either way, but obviously you want to do it the way your professor wants it. So I would rephrase it like this:
Issue: Did the lower court err in concluding that lists of advertisers and distributors containing publicly available information was a trade secret entitled to injunctive protection?