Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Court upheld the Anton Piller order, finding sufficient evidence of potential misuse of proprietary information.

• The procedure manual at issue was determined to be a product of significant work by RRC, not merely a third-party document.

• Mr. Vekved breached his confidentiality obligations by retaining and benefiting from confidential information after resignation.

• Circumstantial indicators—such as missing documents, secretive communications, and unexplained client contact—supported adverse inferences.

• The interim injunction was partly set aside due to overbreadth of certain non-compete clauses in the employment agreement.

• Disputes about how to manage seized evidence were deferred for a later hearing due to pending opposition from ACS.

Background and factual context

This case involves Radical Robotics Corp. and affiliated plaintiffs (collectively, RRC) pursuing legal action against ACS Automated Cleaning Services Inc., its principal Mr. Justin Maurice Vekved, and others, for allegedly misappropriating confidential and proprietary information. Mr. Vekved, a former RRC employee, was accused of improperly retaining and using a tank-cleaning procedure manual and other sensitive materials to establish and operate ACS, a competing enterprise.

Following an ex parte application heard on January 8, 2025, Justice Michael J. Lema granted RRC an Anton Piller order (authorizing the seizure of relevant materials without notice) and an interim injunction. A comeback hearing on March 18, 2025, addressed two key issues: the defendants’ request to set aside both orders, and RRC’s request for directions on handling seized evidence.

Policy terms and clauses at issue

Central to the case was the Employee Confidentiality and Non-disclosure Agreement signed by Mr. Vekved on October 12, 2021. Paragraph 5 of the agreement obligated him to return “any property and Confidential Information belonging to [RRC].” The Court interpreted this to include a duty to delete or give up any electronic RRC materials still in his possession upon resignation.

Judicial findings on evidence and conduct

Justice Lema declined to set aside the Anton Piller order, finding that the evidence presented on January 8, 2025, remained materially unchallenged even after cross-examination. He found that the procedure manual in question, though possibly derived from a pre-existing template, incorporated substantial original contributions by Mr. Kos and others at RRC and contained sensitive, valuable information.

The Court further held that:

• Mr. Vekved improperly retained the manual post-resignation and was not entitled to do so, even if he had shared it with Mr. Kos.

• The possession of the manual gave ACS a tangible advantage in entering the tank-cleaning market.

• ACS’s website briefly featured a photo image from RRC, and though the use was limited, it added to the overall evidentiary picture.

• A series of circumstantial findings—including Mr. Vekved’s failure to disclose ACS plans, missing documents from RRC’s systems, secure “Signal” messaging, attempts at employee solicitation, and client interactions—collectively supported the inference that RRC’s proprietary information had been used by ACS.

The judge also noted that the evidence presented at the initial hearing fairly represented RRC’s case, which relied in part on indirect evidence and reasonable inferences.

Injunction modification and further directions

While upholding the Anton Piller order, the Court agreed with ACS’s objection that parts of the interim injunction were overly broad. Specifically, it struck down paragraphs 2(iii) and 2(iv) of the interim order, which were based on the overreaching covenants in paragraphs 2(c) and 2(d) of the employment agreement.

As for RRC’s application concerning the management of seized evidence, Justice Lema deferred any ruling, noting that ACS might contest some of the requested relief. He invited counsel to coordinate for a hearing on that issue once he returned from judicial leave after April 22.

Conclusion

Justice Lema’s decision maintained critical protective orders for RRC, affirming the validity of the Anton Piller order and most of the interim injunction. His findings emphasized the value of circumstantial evidence in cases involving confidential business information and the responsibilities of departing employees under non-disclosure agreements. At the same time, the Court recognized and corrected overreach in the scope of certain restrictive covenants, reflecting a balanced approach to equitable relief.

Costs and damages were not discussed or awarded, and any related matters remain pending or unaddressed in this judgment.