{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:us:fae3c7","proof":"sha256:9c6b63eae87c6a0adebd056b6e80ebc66420a6a2fbc10542958f4fd06e1427c1","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"File Name: 26a0267p.06","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"UEC HOLDINGS, INC.,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"STEVEN MARK HATCHER; KENT POWER, INC.;","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"TROY KENT,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Defendants-Appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"┐","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"│","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"┘","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"No. 25-6123","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"No. 3:25-cv-00731—David Jason Hale, District Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Argued: July 21, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Decided and Filed: September 17, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Before: SILER, DAVIS, and RITZ, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"COUNSEL","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"ARGUED: D. Andrew Portinga, MILLER JOHNSON, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Appellants. Jonathan Landesman, COHEN SEGALIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN,","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: D. Andrew Portinga, James R.","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Peterson, Amanda L. Rauh-Bieri, MILLER JOHNSON, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Appellants. Jonathan Landesman, Lori W. Azzara, Leigh Nazzario, COHEN SEGALIAS","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":">","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 2","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"_________________","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"SILER, Circuit Judge. The Plaintiffs, UEC Holdings, Inc. (“UEC”) and United Electric","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Company, Inc.1 (“United Electric”), sued the Defendants, Steven Mark Hatcher (“Hatcher”),","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Troy Kent (“Kent”), and Kent Power, Inc. (“Kent Power”), alleging misappropriation of trade","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"secrets. Subsequently, the district court issued a preliminary injunction order—the subject of","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"this appeal. The preliminary injunction requires that the Defendants cease working on a contract","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"with one of United Electric’s clients, Louisville Gas & Electric (“LG&E”). The order also","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"directs independent forensic examiners to obtain “responsive items” from the Defendants’","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"electronic devices. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish irreparable harm or show that","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"the preliminary injunction order is narrowly tailored, we VACATE and REMAND the district","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"court’s order.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"I. Background","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"United Electric is a Kentucky union contractor, providing electrical construction and","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"utility services in and around Louisville, Kentucky. Hatcher became Vice President of United","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"Electric’s utility division in 2019. As Vice President, Hatcher had access to sensitive","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"information, such as confidential pricing, bid templates, rate sheets, labor and equipment","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"burdens, customer strategies, and performance data.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"In August 2025, UEC (the parent and sole owner of United Electric) terminated Hatcher","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"for poor financial performance, documentation failures, dishonesty, customer dissatisfaction, and","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"safety violations. Following his termination, UEC forensically reviewed Hatcher’s company-","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"issued devices. The Plaintiffs allege that UEC found communications between Hatcher and Kent","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"(the owner of Kent Power) spanning July through August 2025, in which Hatcher allegedly","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"transmitted confidential pricing and rate materials.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"1When this appeal was filed, United Electric was not included as a plaintiff in the appeal. It was added as a","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"plaintiff in the amended complaint, however. Consequently, this opinion refers to United Electric as a plaintiff and","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"refers to UEC and United Electric together as the “Plaintiffs.”","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 3","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"Because of this, the Plaintiffs brought suit in federal district court, seeking injunctive","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"relief, compensatory and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. More specifically, the","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"Plaintiffs raised a federal misappropriation of trade secrets claim under the Defend Trade Secrets","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b), a state misappropriation of trade secrets claim under the","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Kentucky Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“KUTSA”), Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 365.880-365.900, and","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"several state-law contract claims related to Hatcher’s employment agreements. The Plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"then moved for a preliminary injunction.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction Motion","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"At the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion, Hatcher testified that, about a month","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"before he was terminated, he texted Kent about LG&E’s bid process. Their text conversations","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"addressed Kent Power potentially obtaining a contract with LG&E for transmission work—a","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"type of work that United Electric cannot perform because it lacks the necessary equipment.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Hatcher further suggested that Kent Power was interested in more than just transmission work;","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Kent Power was also interested in doing distribution work for LG&E. United Electric’s","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"distribution work for LG&E comprises 95% of the business for United Electric’s utility division.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"While discussing LG&E’s bid process, Hatcher texted Kent some of United Electric’s","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"proprietary information, including its pricing information and union hiring rates. Hatcher","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"indicated that he deleted texts with Kent before returning his phone to United Electric. And he","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"did not deny that some of the information he shared was trade secret information.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"Despite these disclosures, Hatcher stated that, since starting work for Kent Power, the","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"company had not taken any business away from United Electric. Later, on cross-examination,","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"United Electric’s former Chief Operating Officer could not identify any business that United","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Electric had lost to Kent Power.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Kent also testified. He agreed that his text communications with Hatcher were wrong.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"But he stated that he did not use United Electric’s unit-pricing information to develop a proposal","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"to LG&E. On this point, Kent represented that “[o]ur transmission unit and T&E pricing was all","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"submitted well before [my texts with Hatcher].” When asked whether he had Hatcher review","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"pricing before he submitted the transmission proposal to LG&E, Kent responded, “Yeah, in some","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 4","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"way.” Kent indicated that Kent Power submitted rates for distribution work to LG&E but that its","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"rates were twice rejected for being too high. Kent averred that Kent Power had not taken any","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"business from United Electric.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"District Court’s Order Granting a Preliminary Injunction","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Following the hearing, the district court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction.","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"In the order, the district court found that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"DTSA and KUTSA claims because “the information [shared by Hatcher with Kent] had","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"independent economic value, was not generally known, and . . . efforts were made to keep it","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"secret.” Likewise, the district court found that the Plaintiffs had established irreparable harm for","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"these claims because “the relationship that has been furthered between Kent Power and LG&E . .","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":". does present a potentially significant competitive injury to [the Plaintiffs], particularly if Kent","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Power later begins providing distribution services in the Louisville area.” On the scope of relief,","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"the district court reasoned that requiring Kent Power to cease work for LG&E would be the","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"“narrowest” way to grant the Plaintiffs complete relief because of the connection between","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Hatcher’s review of Kent Power’s pricing before it was submitted to LG&E.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Thus, the district court partially granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"injunction and ordered the following:","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"(4) Defendants are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from directly or indirectly","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"doing any of the following, or aiding or assisting others to do any of the","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"following, for the pendency of this litigation:","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"(a) Defendants shall not use, access, transmit, or disseminate any of UEC or","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"United Electric’s confidential, proprietary, or trade-secret information or","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"documents, including but not limited to pricing models, rate and blended-rate","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"spreadsheets, bid templates, customer information, and operational data","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"referenced in the parties’ communications.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"(b) Defendants shall preserve all electronic or physical materials containing any","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"UEC or United Electric information and shall not delete, alter, or destroy any such","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"materials. Defendants shall grant access to an independent forensic examiner,","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"selected by UEC and approved by the Court, who shall image, preserve, and","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"search all relevant data sources (including computers, external drives, mobile","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"phones, and cloud accounts) for UEC- and United Electric-generated data or","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"documents; produce responsive items to UEC; and retain mirror images pending","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"further order of this Court.","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 5","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"(c) Defendants shall immediately return to UEC, at their expense, all files,","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"materials, equipment, and confidential information belonging to UEC and United","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Electric and cease any use, copying, or disclosure thereof.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"(d) Defendants shall provide to UEC, within 10 days of the Court’s approval of a","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"qualified independent computer, a written certification of completion from a","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"qualified independent computer forensics vendor selected by UEC and approved","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"by the Court confirming that all UEC and United Electric confidential information","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"has been permanently removed from all devices, accounts, and storage media in","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"Defendants’ custody, possession, or control.","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"(e) Defendants shall withdraw any proposals submitted to, and cease performing","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"any work for, any UEC or United Electric customer or prospective customer with","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"whom Hatcher had dealings during his employment and withdraw any proposals","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"or bids submitted to entities to which United Electric has submitted bids or","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"performed work during the relevant period.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"Following the district court’s preliminary injunction order, the Defendants filed an","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction order.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"Video Meeting with Forensic Examiners","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"After the preliminary injunction order, the parties convened to discuss compliance with","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"the order. During the meeting, the parties “reached an agreement in principle” on certain","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"forensic safeguards, clawback procedures, and custodians. Subsequently, the parties","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"corresponded via e-mail, during which the Plaintiffs declined the Defendants’ request that the","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"parties reduce to writing a forensic protocol or agree to limit ex-parte communication with the","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"forensic examiners.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"Because of the lack of a written forensic protocol and protective order, the Defendants","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"repeatedly moved to limit the scope of the forensic examination. Despite these efforts, the","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"district court and later the magistrate judge denied relief.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"II. Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"We review a district court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction under an abuse-of-","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"discretion standard. Babler v. Futhey, 618 F.3d 514, 519 (6th Cir. 2010). But that can be","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"misleading. While we apply deferential review to a district court’s fact findings and its ultimate","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 6","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"judgment about whether to grant the preliminary injunction, we treat a mistake of law as an","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"abuse of discretion. Union Home Mortg. Corp. v. Cromer, 31 F.4th 356, 366 (6th Cir. 2022).","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"III. Discussion","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"A. The Contract Between Kent Power and LG&E","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"Paragraph 4(e) of the district court’s preliminary injunction order requires that Kent","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Power cease working under the transmission contract with LG&E. The Defendants contend that","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"this portion of the court’s order improperly restrains Kent Power from performing work that the","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"Plaintiffs cannot perform. The Plaintiffs argue that this provision is necessary to prevent","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"downstream competitive disadvantages.","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"“When faced with requests for a preliminary injunction, district courts consider four","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"factors: (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the risk of irreparable harm to","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"the plaintiff in the absence of an injunction; (3) the risk that an injunction will harm others; and","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"(4) the broader public interest.” PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty, 176 F.4th 509, 512-13 (6th","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Cir. 2026) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); A1 Diabetes &","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Med. Supply v. Azar, 937 F.3d 613, 618 (6th Cir. 2019)). “After weighing the four factors","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"against one another, a court may grant a preliminary injunction only if a plaintiff has made ‘a","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"clear showing that [it] is entitled to such relief.’” PCC Airfoils, 176 F.4th at 513 (alteration in","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"original) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 22). That said, there is an especially relevant caveat to the","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"general rule that we must balance the four factors: It is “indispensable” that the plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"establishes some kind of irreparable harm. D.T. v. Sumner Cnty. Schs., 942 F.3d 324, 326-27","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"(6th Cir. 2019). Indeed, “the existence of an irreparable injury is mandatory.” Id. at 327","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"(emphasis omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"On irreparable harm, the Defendants argue that, because the contract with LG&E is for","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"work that United Electric cannot perform, no harm has occurred. In contrast, the Plaintiffs argue","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"that if Kent Power is allowed to perform transmission work for LG&E, they would suffer","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"competitive disadvantages that could not be undone by a damages award.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 7","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"Typically, “a plaintiff’s harm is not irreparable if it is fully compensable by money","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"damages.” Basicomputer Corp. v. Scott, 973 F.2d 507, 511 (6th Cir. 1992). The alleged","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"irreparable harm must also be immediate and not “speculative or theoretical.” Ohio v. Becerra,","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"No. 21-4235, 2022 WL 413680, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2022) (order) (quoting D.T., 942 F.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"327). That is, to show irreparable harm, the moving party must establish that, without injunctive","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"relief, “they will suffer ‘actual and imminent’ harm rather than harm that is speculative or","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"unsubstantiated.” Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 443 F.3d 540, 552 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"At the preliminary injunction hearing, multiple witnesses confirmed that the Plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"cannot perform transmission work. So, the contract for transmission work between Kent Power","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"and LG&E poses no direct threat to United Electric’s business. This matters because if the","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"Plaintiffs desire to establish an irreparable injury, the injury must come from something else.","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"Recognizing no direct threat, the district court found that the irreparable harm to the","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"Plaintiffs resulted from downstream effects of the contract for transmission work. Specifically,","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"the court stated that UEC had established irreparable harm because “the relationship that has","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"been furthered between Kent Power and LG&E . . . does present a potentially significant","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"competitive injury to UEC, particularly if Kent Power later begins providing distribution services","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"in the Louisville area.”","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"The problem with this finding is straightforward. At this stage, nothing in the record","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"shows with any certainty that Kent Power poses a competitive threat to United Electric’s","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"relationship with LG&E. Indeed, at the hearing, Hatcher stated that Kent Power had not taken","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"any business from United Electric. And United Electric’s former COO could not identify any","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"business that United Electric lost to Kent Power. It is true that Kent Power twice attempted to","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"obtain distribution business with LG&E. But these attempts were unsuccessful. In other words,","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"the record does not indicate that the Plaintiffs’ relationship with LG&E has suffered or will","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"likely suffer from Kent Power’s transmission services contract with LG&E.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"Further, the record lacks sufficient evidence suggesting that Kent Power poses a threat to","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"United Electric’s distribution services or other services in Louisville. It is clear, based on","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"Hatcher’s testimony, that Kent Power desires to enter the Louisville market. But it is unclear","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 8","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"that the contract between Kent Power and LG&E has meaningfully challenged United Electric’s","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"market position because nothing in the record shows that United Electric has suffered any loss of","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"business in Louisville. To succeed on this prong, the Plaintiffs must show some imminent, non-","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"speculative harm. They have not shown any harm. See Insulet Corp. Ltd. v. EOFlow, Co., 104","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"F.4th 873, 883-84 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (concluding that “generalized fear of a larger competitor”","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"resulting from the competitor’s alleged misappropriation of trade secrets is insufficient to","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"establish irreparable harm).","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"It is true, as the Plaintiffs emphasize, that we have permitted injunctive relief when","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"misappropriation of trade secrets led to loss of goodwill and competitive disadvantage. See","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"Brake Parts, Inc. v. Lewis, 443 F. App’x 27, 32 (6th Cir. 2011) (applying KUTSA). But the","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"cases that the Plaintiffs rely on for this proposition are distinguishable. For example, in Brake","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Parts, we affirmed a district court’s order enjoining the defendant from using trade secrets to","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"develop, produce, manufacture, and sell products that relied on trade secrets. See id. at 28, 32.","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"Thus, in that case, the misappropriation of trade secrets was “ongoing”—the trade secrets were","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"baked into the defendant’s production process. See id. at 27 (observing that the defendant","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"allegedly “integrated [the trade secret information] into its own manufacturing processes”).","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"Because the defendant’s production process relied on misappropriated trade secrets,","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"misappropriation would have continued if production was not enjoined. See id. at 32. Here, that","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"is not the case. Indeed, the Plaintiffs do not contend that Kent Power’s contract with LG&E","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"entails ongoing misuse of United Electric’s trade secrets. And the other cases that the Plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"cite suffer from a similar problem. See, e.g., AtriCure, Inc. v. Jian Meng, 842 F. App’x 974 (6th","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"Cir. 2021) (upholding a preliminary injunction that stopped the defendant from producing","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"products that relied upon trade secret information).","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"Because the record lacks evidence that the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"absence of enjoining the contract between Kent Power and LG&E, the district court abused its","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"discretion by finding otherwise. Accordingly, paragraph 4(e) is vacated.","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 9","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"B. The Forensic Examination","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"As relevant, the Defendants next contend that paragraphs 4(b)-(d) of the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"order are not narrowly tailored because they do not protect the Defendants’ confidential","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"information. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that paragraphs 4(b)-(d) should remain unchanged","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"because there is no threat that the Defendants’ confidential information will be disclosed.","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"Under the DTSA, courts may “issue an order providing for the seizure of property","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret that is the subject of the","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"action” when injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 or some other kind of","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"equitable relief would be inadequate. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(i). But even then, such a","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"seizure order must “provide for the narrowest seizure of property necessary to achieve the","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"purpose of [the seizure].” Id. § 1836(b)(2)(B)(ii). Here, the district court apparently deemed","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"injunctive relief adequate, but like the seizures permitted by § 1836(b)(2), its injunction needed","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"to be closely devised to protect the Defendants’ confidential information. While the caselaw","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"regarding the permissible scope of forensic examinations of electronic information is limited, we","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"have noted that forensic imaging of devices, “in and of itself, raises privacy and confidentiality","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"concerns.” John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448, 457, 460 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"34(a) Advisory Committee Note (2006)). Because of its inherent breadth, mirror imaging of","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"electronic devices risks exposure of “confidential . . . or private personal information that is","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"wholly unrelated to the litigation.” Id. at 460. Thus, “[c]ourts should guard against undue","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"intrusiveness resulting from inspecting or testing [electronic information] systems.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"As relevant, paragraph 4(b) of the district court’s order directed that “an independent","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"forensic examiner . . . image, preserve, and search all [of the Defendants’] relevant data sources.”","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"The items subject to imaging included “computers, external drives, mobile phones, and cloud","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"accounts.” This was ordered to allow the forensic examiners to identify and retrieve “UEC- and","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"United Electric-generated data.”","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"Following this order, the parties convened virtually, and—along with the independent","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"forensic examiners—orally agreed to forensic safeguards, clawback procedures, and custodians.","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"However, in subsequent email exchanges, the Plaintiffs declined to reduce these oral agreements","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 10","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"to writing. Consequently, the Defendants moved to limit the scope of the forensic examination.","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"The district court and later the magistrate judge denied relief.","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"At the outset, the district court’s preliminary injunction order, particularly paragraph 4(b),","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"appears to be overbroad. It allows for forensic imaging without reference to what custodians,","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"devices, and information the examination is limited. The order also does not define what","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"information is relevant or “responsive.” In other words, nothing in the order determines what is","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"to be searched or what information is subject to disclosure.","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"Because of the breadth of the order, the forensic examiners could gain access to the","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Defendants’ trade secrets, which is expressly renounced by the DTSA. On this point, the DTSA","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"states that “the court shall enter such orders and take such other action as may be necessary and","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 1835(a). And the","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"Defendants identify specific trade secrets and confidential information that may be at risk: “Kent","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"Power maintains . . . extensive confidential business information, including past and current","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"contracting bids; customer and vendor lists; intellectual property; passwords; classified customer","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"data flagged internally as ‘do not distribute;’ . . . and other confidential business information.”","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"Without delineating precisely what items are subject to review and what information is","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"responsive to the search, these trade secrets are at risk of exposure. Accordingly, the district","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"court’s order does not narrow in on the safeguards necessary to protect the Defendants’ trade","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"secrets.","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"Moreover, the Defendants argue that because of the district court order’s breadth, the","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"Defendants may have other confidential and personal information exposed: “Kent Power","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"maintains . . . private employee information such as health information, payroll, and performance","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"improvement plans.” Absent a forensic protocol, this information would potentially be reviewed","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"by the forensic examiners and could be exposed, whether intentionally or unintentionally,","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"without recourse. This risk is the sort that we have elsewhere rejected as impermissible. See","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"John B., 531 F.3d at 460.","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"In response to the above reasoning, the Plaintiffs argue that the parties, along with the","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"forensic examiners, agreed “in principle” to limitations on the forensic review and discussed","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"No. 25-6123 UEC Holdings, Inc. v. Hatcher, et al. Page 11","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"clawback procedures. Even granting that, a verbal understanding has no bearing on the scope of","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"the district court’s order. Nor are such promises by the forensic examiners and Plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"necessarily binding. So, this argument is unavailing.","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"The Plaintiffs next rely on Safelite Group, Inc. v. Lockridge for the proposition that","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"forensic imaging is appropriate in trade-secrets cases, so long as the devices to be reviewed","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"contain relevant confidential information. No. 2:21-CV-4558, 2023 WL 4747987, at *3 (S.D.","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"Ohio July 25, 2023). In Safelite, the defendant resisted forensic imaging of two devices that","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"were likely to contain relevant information. Id. at *2-3. Here, the district court’s order does not","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"narrow the scope of forensic imaging to only those devices likely to contain relevant","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"information. And narrow tailoring was not meaningfully at issue in Safelite. See id. at *4.","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"Narrow tailoring is the main issue here, so Safelite is inapposite.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"The Plaintiffs’ other concerns are similarly unconvincing. They argue that John B.","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"supports their position. Not so. That case addressed concerns about overly broad forensic","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"imaging, and the order here is similarly overbroad. The Plaintiffs’ final contention—that a","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"protective order is unnecessary because the forensic examiners are supposed to identify only","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"Plaintiff-specific information—misses the point. If the Plaintiffs obtain the Defendants’","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"confidential information, the Defendants have no recourse because they have no protective order.","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"That concern remains no matter who conducts the forensic imaging.","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"Ultimately, the district court failed to provide protections for the Defendants’","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"confidential, privileged, and private information, making its order overbroad. As it made an","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"overbroad order, the court abused its discretion on this issue.","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"IV. Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"Because the Plaintiffs have not established irreparable harm regarding paragraph 4(e) of","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"the district courts order and because paragraphs 4(b)-(d) of the order are not narrowly tailored,","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"we VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_326"}],"word_count":3719,"cites":["555 U.S. 7","618 F.3d 514","31 F.4th 356","176 F.4th 509","937 F.3d 613","942 F.3d 324","973 F.2d 507","443 F.3d 540","104\nF.4th 873","531 F.3d 448"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"6079ecb006782d27595e16e06d9fe25c7ceabf906782a50ff941e6632aa54bd5","source_url":"http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0267p-06.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T21:25:06.513+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19","name":"United States v. Reina Chirinos de Urena","decided":"2026-10-19","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-5976-2026-10-19"},{"id":"us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16","name":"Appalachian Voices v. TVA","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-26-5836-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16","name":"United States v. Antoine Cook","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-3775-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15","name":"Paula Bailey v. Mich. Dep't of Corr.","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1608-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09","name":"Ifeoma Ada Chinweoke Ojukwu v. Todd Lyons","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-26-3891-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","name":"Kushawn Miles-El v. State of Michigan","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1140-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","name":"Lexon Insurance Company v. James Justice, II","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-6096-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08","name":"Jennifer Byrum v. Knox County, Tenn.","decided":"2026-10-08","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-5830-2026-10-08"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08","name":"United States v. Charles Mixon","decided":"2026-10-08","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-5443-2026-10-08"},{"id":"us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07","name":"United States v. Nathan Goddard","decided":"2026-10-07","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-24-3841-2026-10-07"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"6079ecb006782d27595e16e06d9fe25c7ceabf906782a50ff941e6632aa54bd5","recomputed_sha256":"6079ecb006782d27595e16e06d9fe25c7ceabf906782a50ff941e6632aa54bd5","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-11-03T11:53:48.242Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":10,"word_count":3719,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:9c6b63eae87c6a0adebd056b6e80ebc66420a6a2fbc10542958f4fd06e1427c1","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T08:46:54","content_hash":"sha256:9c6b63eae87c6a0adebd056b6e80ebc66420a6a2fbc10542958f4fd06e1427c1","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T12:53:48.711Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca6-25-6123-2026-09-17","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-c51e4d81cd87666e3f639ed7e6c4af14","response_hash":"sha256:9c6b63eae87c6a0adebd056b6e80ebc66420a6a2fbc10542958f4fd06e1427c1"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:53:48.987Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca6-25-6123-2026-09-17&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":16533}}