UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, No. 25-6123 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2026), full opinion (PDF)
The Sixth Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction that sent an independent forensic examiner into trade secret defendants' devices. The injunction covered every relevant data source the defendants held, from computers to cloud accounts, without naming a custodian or a device. It never defined what information counted as responsive. No written protocol or protective order accompanied the injunction. The parties reached an oral agreement on safeguards after the order issued. The court reasoned that the oral agreement had no bearing on the scope of the order. An order that leaves the search undefined, the court concluded, fails to protect the responding party's confidential, privileged, and private information.
What happened
An electrical contractor's parent company terminated a vice president, then forensically reviewed his company-issued devices. According to the parent company, the review found communications with the owner of another contractor, Kent Power. The plaintiffs sued the former vice president, Kent Power, and its owner under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Kentucky Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and state contract law. At the injunction hearing the former vice president testified that he had texted pricing information to Kent Power's owner.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction. One paragraph required the defendants to grant access to an independent forensic examiner, selected by the plaintiff and approved by the court. The examiner would image, preserve, and search all relevant data sources, including computers, phones, and cloud accounts, for plaintiff-generated data.
After the order issued, the parties met with the forensic examiners to discuss compliance. They reached what the opinion describes as an agreement in principle on safeguards, clawback procedures, and custodians. When the defendants asked that the parties reduce a forensic protocol to writing, the plaintiffs declined. The defendants repeatedly moved to limit the scope of the examination. Both the district court and, later, a magistrate judge denied relief.
The court's analysis
The Defend Trade Secrets Act requires that a seizure order provide for the narrowest seizure necessary. In this case the district court had apparently deemed an injunction adequate rather than ordering a seizure, the Sixth Circuit noted. Even so, the court reasoned, the injunction needed to be closely devised to protect the defendants' confidential information. Mirror imaging of a device, the court observed, risks exposing confidential or private personal information wholly unrelated to the litigation.
The court concluded that the imaging provision was overbroad. Because the order set no limit on custodians, devices, or information, the examination could expose the defendants' own trade secrets, the court reasoned. The statute directs courts to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets, the court noted. The defendants had identified specific material at risk, including Kent Power's bids, customer and vendor lists, passwords, and employee health and payroll records. Absent a forensic protocol, the court reasoned, the employee information could be exposed intentionally or accidentally.
The plaintiffs answered that the parties had agreed in principle to limits on the review. A verbal understanding has no bearing on the scope of the district court's order, the court responded. Nor were promises from the forensic examiners and the plaintiffs necessarily binding, the court added. The plaintiffs also argued that a protective order was unnecessary because the examiner would identify only plaintiff-specific information. Whoever conducted the imaging, the court answered, the defendants' confidential information could reach the plaintiffs. Lacking a protective order, the defendants would then have no recourse, in the court's view.
The Sixth Circuit vacated the whole order. A provision barring Kent Power from performing its contract with a utility customer fell with it. The plaintiffs had failed to establish irreparable harm on that provision, the court concluded.
Why it matters
A forensic examination ordered as injunctive relief needs the same boundaries as one ordered in discovery. A movant who wants an examiner inside the other side's devices should write the protocol into the proposed order before the hearing. The proposed order should name the custodians, list the devices and accounts, and define responsive data by source or by search parameters. It should also state who reviews the results first, how privileged material is clawed back, and what the examiner may report to the requesting party. Attach a protective order. Each item the order leaves open is an argument for vacatur on appeal.
A responding party should ask for a written protocol and a protective order on the record. An oral agreement reached with the examiners does not narrow the order. A movant who declines to put that agreement in writing leaves the order at its full breadth. The responding party should also name the specific categories of its own confidential material the examination would expose. Kent Power identified its bids, customer and vendor lists, passwords, and employee records. A responding party outside a trade secret case can cite this published opinion for the proposition that mirror imaging risks exposing unrelated confidential and private information.
The full opinion is available as a PDF.
