Post on 10-Feb-2018
transcript
H U N T O N & WI L L I A M S LLP
1 1 1 1 B R I C K E L L A V E . , S U I T E 2 5 0 0 , M I A M I , F L 3 3 1 3 1 • T E L E P H O N E ( 3 0 5 ) 8 1 0 - 2 5 0 0 • F A C S I M I L E ( 3 0 5 ) 8 1 0 - 2 4 6 0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Jacksonville Division
Case No. 3:09-CV-176-J-32MCR
VISTAKON PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., a New York Corporation, Defendant. ______________________________________/
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Injunctive Relief Sought)
Plaintiff VISTAKON® Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“VISTAKON®”), a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal place of business at
7500 Centurion Parkway, Jacksonville, Florida, 32256, by way of Amended Complaint
against defendant, says:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil action seeking injunctive relief and damages against
defendant Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (“B&L”), a direct competitor of plaintiff. To prevent
immediate and irreparable harm, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop the flagrant
pirating of plaintiff’s sales force by B&L and to prevent B&L from continuing its
intentional and unjustified efforts to induce plaintiff’s sales force to violate their
employee secrecy, non-competition and non-solicitation agreements (the “Agreements”).
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 1 of 23
- 2 -
2. B&L is attempting to expand its sales force in the United States by forty
(40) representatives in preparation for the April 2009 launch of its new ophthalmic (eye)
anti-bacterial product that will compete with plaintiff’s ocular anti-bacterial products.
This new product is B&L’s first and only branded ocular anti-bacterial product, which is
unlike B&L’s other products such as contact lenses and contact lens solutions. Thus,
B&L’s current sales force does not have experience marketing and selling ocular anti-
bacterial products.
3. Plaintiff’s sales force, on the other hand, has significant experience
regarding such products because plaintiff has marketed and sold ocular anti-bacterial
products for years. As a result, in the past two to three weeks, plaintiff is aware that
B&L has solicited at least one-fourth of plaintiff’s sales representatives and is inducing
them to breach their Agreements with plaintiff. As one example, B&L has informed
these sales representatives that if they joined B&L, they would be promoting a competing
product in the same territories and, therefore, to the same clients, that they currently
service for plaintiff, thereby misappropriating plaintiff’s customer relationships and good
will.
4. Also, the sales representatives that B&L has solicited are some of
plaintiff’s best performers. To make matters worse, these representatives would have left
plaintiff en masse since B&L has been soliciting them during the past two to three weeks
for the launch of its new product in April 2009, with training to begin in March 2009. If
they were to leave simultaneously, plaintiff would be without one-fourth of its sales
force. This presents B&L with a “win win” situation – B&L would obtain a highly
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 2 of 23
- 3 -
successful sales force that has knowledge of plaintiff’s confidential, proprietary and trade
secret information (collectively “Confidential Information”), including client information
and customer relationships, while at the same time leaving plaintiff, a direct competitor,
without at least one-fourth of its sales force, thereby inflicting significant damage to
plaintiff’s business and good will.
5. B&L contacted these sales representatives on their private unpublished
cell phones, through company e-mail and, at times, their homes, indicating that to
accomplish this raid on plaintiff’s talent, B&L has inappropriately obtained and used an
internal confidential contact roster of plaintiff’s sales force.
6. In addition to injunctive relief, plaintiff seeks an award of damages which
it has sustained or will sustain.
THE PARTIES
7. Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) is the parent company of subsidiaries engaged
in the business of developing, manufacturing and marketing a wide variety of health care
products, and providing related services, for the consumer, pharmaceutical, medical
device and diagnostics markets. J&J’s subsidiaries and operating companies market their
products to customers located throughout the United States and the world.
8. Plaintiff VISTAKON® is a subsidiary of J&J. Plaintiff develops and
markets pharmaceutical products that treat certain ophthalmic conditions such as ocular
irritation due to allergies and certain bacterial infections such as bacterial conjunctivitis
(“pink eye”) and bacterial keratitis (corneal ulcers). Plaintiff markets and sells the
following products, among others: (A) IQUIX®, an anti-bacterial drug used for the
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 3 of 23
- 4 -
treatment of corneal ulcers caused by susceptible strains of certain bacteria; (B)
QUIXIN®, another anti-bacterial drug that kills many types of bacteria that may cause
pink eye; (C) ALAMAST®, an anti-allergy drug that is used to prevent itchy eyes caused
by allergies; and (D) BETIMOL®, a medicine used to lower intraocular eye pressure due
to elevated (intraocular) pressure resulting from ocular hypertension or open-angle
glaucoma.
9. Defendant Bausch & Lomb, Inc. is a New York corporation, with its
principal place of business located at One Bausch & Lomb Place, Rochester, NY 14604.
B&L’s products are marketed and sold throughout the United States, including Florida.
B&L has purposefully, systematically and continually directed contacts to and conducted
business in Florida. B&L is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
10. B&L is a direct competitor of plaintiff in the development, manufacture
and marketing of products that treat ophthalmic conditions. For example, when it
receives FDA approval, B&L’s new product, Optura®, and plaintiff’s existing product,
QUIXIN®, will both be approved for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.
Accordingly, both B&L and plaintiff will market their drugs to the same physicians for
the same indication. In addition, Optura®, QUIXIN®, and IQUIX® are in the same class
of drugs known as fluroquinelones (“FQs”). Opthalmic surgeons routinely prescribe FQs
as part of the standard of care for the prevention and treatment of eye infections in
surgical patients. Thus, without regard to how B&L and plaintiff market the attributes of
their respective products, the same universe of surgeons will choose among Optura®,
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 4 of 23
- 5 -
QUIXIN®, IQUIX® and other FQs when determining the appropriate medication for use
in patients undergoing eye surgery.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as
there is complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff VISTAKON® and defendant
B&L, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.
12. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(a)(2) since plaintiff is located in the Middle District of Florida and defendants
products are promoted and sold throughout this District.
OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT B&L HIRED AND/OR ATTEMPTED TO HIRE
13. In the past few years, B&L has employed several former executives of
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (“Vision Care”), which is another J&J subsidiary
and the world’s leading manufacturer of disposable contact lenses and other products for
vision care health. These highly placed upper management employees were in positions
that steered the overall strategy for Vision Care and plaintiff. These employees included,
among others: (A) Michael Gowen, the former Vice President of Global Operations and
Supply Chain for Vision Care; (B) Clifford Wright, O.D., the former Director of Business
Development and Technology Transfer for Vision Care; (C) Peter Valenti, the former
Vice President of Marketing for Vision Care; (D) David Edwards, the former President of
Vision Care for Asia Pacific; (E) Carol Panzor, the former Executive Director of
Knowledge Management for Vision Care; and (F) Seevali Fernando, the former IT
Director of Vision Care for Asia Pacific. B&L also employed, Gerald Ostrov, the former
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 5 of 23
- 6 -
J&J Company Group Chairman. All of these former employees are aware that
VISTAKON® employees have employment agreements that contain non-disclosure,
non-competition, and non-solicitation covenants.
14. In addition, B&L has recently, and is currently, soliciting at least the
following sales representatives and district manager (collectively “Sales
Representatives”) of plaintiff that cover territories spanning the United States: (1) Kevin
Ledwith – District Manager of the Northeast; (2) Tracy Scafariello – Sales Representative
for Connecticut; (3) Eric Lopez – Sales Representative for Brooklyn, Queens and
Manhattan, New York; (4) Barry Carter – Sales Representative for Virginia; (5) Josh
Meredith – Sales Representative for North Carolina; (6) Melanie Lupo – Sales
Representative for North Georgia; (7) Brian Gardner – Sales Representative for Arizona
and part of Nevada; and (8) Peter Benitez – Sales Representative in the area from San
Francisco through the Silicon Valley peninsula and San Jose. Not only do these Sales
Representatives represent a wide geographic area, but also they are among plaintiff’s best
performers.
PLAINTIFF AND SOME OF ITS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
15. The market for products that treat ophthalmic conditions has become more
and more competitive in recent years and plaintiff has been developing innovative
responses to better position its products in these markets. The pharmaceutical industry
for the treatment of ophthalmic conditions is a several hundred million dollar, world-wide
market.
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 6 of 23
- 7 -
16. In recent years, plaintiff has expended large amounts of time, resources
and money in researching, developing, and testing innovative, new products for treating
ophthalmic conditions. Due to its significant efforts, plaintiff has innovative, new
products in its pipeline for the short-term (1 year), mid-term (3 to 5 years) and long-term
(+ 5 years). Such information about plaintiff’s pipeline products and research and
development efforts and plans are considered Confidential Information.
17. Plaintiff has also expended large amounts of time, resources and money in
developing Confidential Information relating to strategies in connection with the
marketing and sale of its current and pipeline products in the United States. Such
information includes, but is not limited to, products in development, customer focus and
pricing strategies.
18. Plaintiff also invested a considerable amount of time, resources and
money in developing its sales force in the United States. For a sales force to be effective,
it is important to have the right number of salespersons, properly and fully trained, and
each placed in a strategically defined geographic territory. Plaintiff has invested
considerable resources in developing the optimal strategy for the alignment of its sales
force in the United States. Presently, plaintiff employs thirty-four (34) sales
representatives across the United States and four district managers. The recruitment and
training of a single sales representative costs over $25,000. Plaintiff also loses
approximately $75,000 to $100,000 in sales by the time a new sales representative
becomes acclimated in his/her territory.
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 7 of 23
- 8 -
19. Plaintiff takes measures to protect its Confidential Information. All
employees have IDs and there is a sign-in procedure for visitors at all facilities. No one
visits a facility without an escort. All computers have secure access features and fire
walls. Plaintiff also has security and confidentiality policies and agreements which it
enforces. Plaintiff maintains contact with its sales representatives through electronic and
telephone networks that are not available to outsiders and through use of non-published
cellular phone numbers.
THE SALES REPRESENTATIVES AND THE AGREEMENTS
20. As a condition of their employment, and because of their access to
Confidential Information, each of the Sales Representatives executed an Agreement,
which, among other things, contain three covenants.
21. First, each Agreement contains a “non-compete” covenant whereby each
Sales Representative promised not to work for a competitor, for a period of eighteen (18)
months after termination for any reason, if he or she would work on the competitor’s
products that competes with plaintiff’s products and he or she had access to Confidential
Information regarding plaintiff’s products that could be used to enhance the use or
marketability of the competitor’s products.
22. Second, each Agreement contains a non-solicitation covenant whereby the
Sales Representative, for a period of 18 months after termination for any reason, cannot
solicit any business from, sell to, or render any services to, or, directly or indirectly, help
others solicit business from or render any service or sell to, any of the accounts,
customers or clients with whom they had contact during the last 12 months of
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 8 of 23
- 9 -
employment with plaintiff, for any purpose related to the sale of a product or service that
could compete with a product or service being sold or developed by plaintiff.
23. Third, each Agreement contains a non-solicitation covenant whereby the
Sales Representative, for a period of 12 months after termination for any reason, cannot
solicit or hire on their own behalf, or on behalf of others, any employees of plaintiff.
24. Each Sales Representative has considerable experience with plaintiff’s
products. Through their positions, each of the Sales Representatives had access to and
acquired intimate knowledge of plaintiff’s Confidential Information, including the
following:
• strategic priorities and objectives for the short-term (1 to 2 years), mid-term (3 to 5 years) and long-term (+ 5 years);
• pipeline products; • product development plans and strategies for new products; • regulatory progress of products; • marketing and sales plans; • pricing strategies with regard to managed care organizations; • targeting strategies, such as information concerning clients in their
territory, the areas where plaintiff should stress its marketing and sales force based on activities of certain clients, which products better match the needs of certain clients and the amount of sales made per client;
• clients, including key clients; • sales objectives, sales forecasts and quotas; • contracting status with managed care organizations; • sales force alignment plans and strategies to change the alignment,
including how the company breaks down its territories; • inventory strategies; • names, addresses, cell phone numbers and sales numbers of sales
representatives; • net sales and revenue projections for various markets; • training and recruiting strategies; and • compensation plans.
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 9 of 23
- 10 -
25. For example, each Sales Representative is intimately knowledgeable of,
and had access to, plaintiff’s Confidential Information regarding its customers and sales
force plan concerning their respective territories, including: (1) how plaintiff breaks down
the territories; (2) how a sales force that markets and sells products that treat ophthalmic
conditions should be geographically divided; (3) the areas where plaintiff should focus its
marketing and sales force based on the activity level of certain physicians and
pharmacies; (4) plaintiff’s customers; (5) which products better match the needs of
certain clients; and (6) the volume of sales made through these efforts.
26. The Sales Representatives, therefore, have intimate knowledge of
plaintiff’s most Confidential Information with respect to the territories they cover and
products they sell, respectively. To a great extent, plaintiff’s customer relationships are
developed and maintained through plaintiff’s sales representatives, while on plaintiff’s
payroll, such that the sales representative is perceived by the customer as the equivalent
of plaintiff. If plaintiff’s sales representatives were to work at B&L in connection with
B&L’s ocular anti-bacterial product, especially if they do so within the same territory and
contact the same customers, it is inevitable that they would disclose plaintiff’s
Confidential Information and use, exploit and misappropriate plaintiff’s customer
relationships and goodwill.
27. Plaintiff and B&L are direct competitors and if B&L were to gain
knowledge of even some of the Confidential Information, plaintiff would be immediately,
irreparably and severely harmed. Similarly, if B&L, through the services of the Sales
Representatives, were permitted to misappropriate plaintiff’s customer relationships
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 10 of 23
- 11 -
across the country, plaintiff would suffer immediate, irreparable and severe harm.
Money damages would not adequately compensate plaintiff for the losses and injuries it
would suffer, leaving plaintiff with no adequate remedy at law, particularly if its sales
representatives were to leave in numbers and simultaneously across its geographic
territories.
28. This Confidential Information would be of critical importance to B&L
because it is attempting to expand its national sales force in anticipation of its April 2009
launch of its new product, Optura®. Optura® is B&L’s first and only branded product
that is for the treatment of certain ocular bacterial infections. It is unlike B&L’s other
products such as contact lenses and contact lens solutions. As a result, B&L’s sales force
lacks experience in promoting and marketing products that treat certain ocular bacterial
infections.
29. Because plaintiff has had products that focus on treating certain ocular
bacterial infections for years, plaintiff’s Sales Representatives are intimately familiar
with Confidential Information concerning plaintiff’s sales force plan, marketing and sales
plans, and customers that focus on treating ocular bacterial infections. Thus, plaintiff’s
Sales Representatives could use, consciously or unconsciously, this Confidential
Information to improve the marketability of B&L’s product, Optura®, and unfairly
compete with plaintiff. In fact, B&L can create a sales force that mimics plaintiff’s sales
force overnight and use it for the promotion of Optura®.
30. In addition, as explained above, plaintiff has invested over $25,000 for
each sales representative in recruiting and training. Instead of incurring those expenses in
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 11 of 23
- 12 -
building its own sales force, B&L is attempting to take plaintiff’s sales force.
Furthermore, whenever a sales representative leaves, plaintiff loses approximately
$75,000 to $100,000 in sales by the time a new sales representative is trained and
acclimated in the territory.
31. As another example, the Sales Representatives are intimately
knowledgeable of plaintiff’s short-term (1 year), mid-term (3 to 5 years) and long-term (+
5 years) pipeline products. The Sales Representatives can steer B&L’s development of its
pipeline products by, for example, identifying pipeline products that B&L should focus
on that would allow B&L to unfairly compete with plaintiff, or they can provide new
ideas for pipeline products to B&L based on plaintiff’s pipeline products.
DEFENDANTS’ MISCONDUCT
32. As explained above, B&L has already employed a significant number of
Vision Care’s former highly placed upper management employees and B&L’s raiding
campaign continues. In anticipation of the April 2009 launch of Optura®, B&L is
seeking to expand its national sales force by forty (40) sales representatives that have
experience with ocular anti-bacterial products since B&L’s current sales force lacks that
experience. It is apparent that B&L seeks to fill most of these positions with plaintiff’s
sales representatives who have experience marketing and promoting such products.
33. B&L has engaged in a raiding campaign of plaintiff’s sales
representatives. In doing so, B&L has utilized improper means, has an improper purpose,
is inducing the sales representatives to breach their Agreements, and is tortiously
interfering with those Agreements.
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 12 of 23
- 13 -
34. Plaintiff maintains contact with its sales representatives through use of
company issued telephones and electronic mail, the access to which is not publicly
shared. Only someone with internal rosters would have access to this contact information
across plaintiff’s national sales force.
Solicitation of Eric Lopez
35. Mr. Lopez is a Professional Medical Sales Representative for plaintiff
covering Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan, New York. In this position, Mr. Lopez
promotes plaintiff’s products to those who prescribe or sell ophthalmic products,
including doctors and retail outlets such as pharmacies.
36. Recently, Mr. Lopez had an in-person conversation with a sales
representative from B&L. She informed Mr. Lopez that B&L was going to expand into
the ocular anti-bacterial marketplace and that B&L was not subject to the Pharma
guidelines. She let him know that they would be taking doctors to dinner and providing
“kits” to doctors to provide to patients in post-surgical recovery. She also informed Mr.
Lopez that B&L was about to release a new product that is in the same class as IQUIX®.
Mr. Lopez’s cell phone number is not publicly available, but it is on an internal company
list kept by plaintiff, except when he has specifically provided it to a physician.
37. On February 16, 2009, Mr. Lopez received a telephone call on his cell
phone from “Kat” Ollin whose telephone number is (732) 688-9085. Ms. Ollin told Mr.
Lopez that she represented B&L and that B&L was expanding. She invited Mr. Lopez to
an in-person interview for a sales position with B&L in Newark, New Jersey the next
day. If Mr. Lopez were to work for B&L in the same territory that he covers for plaintiff,
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 13 of 23
- 14 -
then he would be calling on the same clients for B&L that he currently calls for plaintiff.
Mr. Lopez informed her that he was not interested in the position, but that he knew a
friend, who did not work for plaintiff, that might be interested. From his friend, Mr.
Lopez learned that B&L’s minimum qualifications include three years of specialty sales
in the ophthalmic anti-bacterial field.
Solicitation of Melanie Lupo
38. For the past three years, Ms. Lupo has been a Professional Medical Sales
Representative for plaintiff covering North Georgia. In that position, she promotes
plaintiff’s products to those who prescribe or sell ophthalmic products, such as doctors
and retail outlets like pharmacies.
39. About a week ago, Ms. Lupo received an unsolicited email from “Kat”
Ollin of B&L. The email from Ms. Ollin asked whether Ms. Lupo was interested in
joining B&L to cover the “Sandy Springs territory,” which is in the same territory that
she currently covers for plaintiff. In such a position, Ms. Scafariello would be calling on
the same clients for B&L that she currently calls on for plaintiff in the same territory.
Ms. Ollin then called Ms. Lupo’s cell phone, even though her cell phone and internal
email address are not generally available to the public and Ms. Lupo’s cell phone number
is not printed on her business card. Ms. Lupo did not respond to the email or the call.
Then, on or about February 17, 2009, another B&L recruiter, Jeanne Storm, called Ms.
Lupo to invite her to interview for a position as a B&L representative in her same
territory. She did not respond to the call.
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 14 of 23
- 15 -
Solicitation of Tracy Scafariello
40. Ms. Scafariello has been employed by plaintiff for five years. She is a
Senior Professional Medical Sales Representative for plaintiff covering the entire state of
Connecticut. At one time, she also covered Westchester, New York. In her position, she
promotes plaintiff’s products to those who prescribe or sell ophthalmic products such as
doctors and retail outlets like pharmacies.
41. On Monday, February 16, 2009, Ms. Scafariello received a phone call on
the “land line” of her home also from a Jeanne Storm, who identified herself as a B&L
recruiter whose phone number is (609) 953-1402. Ms. Storm stated that she knew Ms.
Scafariello worked for plaintiff and that B&L was expanding its sales force and asked if
she would be interested in taking a territory for Connecticut and West Chester, New York
to promote B&L’s new anti-bacterial product. If she took that position, Ms. Scafariello
would be calling on the same clients for B&L that she currently calls for plaintiff as well
as West Chester, where she was previously assigned.
42. Ms. Scafariello informed Ms. Storm that she was not interested and asked
how Ms. Storm got her home phone number since it is listed under a different name. Ms.
Storm responded that she had “different resources.”
Solicitation of Josh Meredith
43. Mr. Meredith has been a Professional Medical Sales Representative for
plaintiff since January 2007 and covers North Carolina. In that position, he promotes
plaintiff’s products to those who prescribe or sell ophthalmic products, including doctors
and retail outlets such as pharmacies. Approximately a week ago, Mr. Meredith received
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 15 of 23
- 16 -
a phone call on his cell phone from someone identifying herself as a representative of
B&L who was seeking to recruit him to a sales position in North Carolina. Had he taken
the position, Mr. Meredith would be calling on the same clients for B&L that he currently
calls on behalf of plaintiff. Mr. Meredith explained that he was not interested in taking a
position with B&L.
Solicitation of Peter Benitez
44. Mr. Benitez has been a Senior Professional Medical Sales Representative
for plaintiff for the past five years. He promotes plaintiff’s products in an area from San
Francisco through the Silicon Valley peninsula and San Jose to those who prescribe or
sell ophthalmic products such as doctors and retail outlets like pharmacies. Mr. Benitez
recently received a message on his cell phone from a B&L representative even though he
does not provide that phone number to people outside the company except for actual
customers. The B&L caller said that he wanted to “network with [Mr. Benitez] on a
national expansion of their sales force” and invited a call back. If Mr. Benitez took a
sales position with B&L that covers the territory that he covers with plaintiff, then he
would be calling on the same clients for B&L that he currently calls for plaintiff.
Solicitation of Barry Carter
45. Mr. Carter has been a Professional Medical Sales Representative for the
past five years for plaintiff. In that position, he promotes plaintiff’s products in Virginia,
except for the Washington DC suburbs, to those that prescribe or sell ophthalmic
products such as doctors and retail outlets like pharmacies.
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 16 of 23
- 17 -
46. Approximately a month ago, Mr. Carter received a call on his cell phone
from a woman who identified herself as “Kat.” She had a phone number of (732) 688-
9085 and, upon information and belief, is the same Kat Ollin who called several others on
their unpublished cell numbers or sent them emails to their company email accounts. She
told Mr. Carter that she was recruiting for B&L for a position in Virginia, that B&L was
expanding its sales force, and that she would like Mr. Carter to consider coming to work
for B&L in Virginia. Mr. Carter is familiar with B&L’s products and sales approach. If
he took the position, Mr. Carter would be calling on the same customers for B&L that he
currently calls on behalf of plaintiff. Mr. Carter informed “Kat” that he was not
interested.
47. Mr. Carter does not have his cell phone number on his business cards and
the number is not published. He does not know how “Kat” got his number.
Solicitation of Brian Gardner
48. Mr. Gardner has been with various J&J companies for the past ten years.
He has been working for plaintiff in the position of Professional Medical Sales
Representative for the past nine months. In that position, he promotes plaintiff’s
products in Arizona and parts of Nevada to those who prescribe or sell ophthalmic
products, such as doctors and retail outlets like pharmacies.
49. In February 2009, Mr. Gardner received a series of messages from
someone he believes was named “Vavid.” This person called Mr. Gardner’s business cell
phone number, left a message separately on his office line and sent him an email at his
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 17 of 23
- 18 -
work email address. He also reached Mr. Gardner one evening at approximately 7:00
p.m. Arizona time at his home and on his cell phone.
50. Vavid identified himself as an in-house recruiter for B&L, told Mr.
Gardner that B&L was going to be adding 40 sales representatives, that B&L was
launching a new product and that the salary would be in the $60,000 to $80,000 range,
but could be “creative.” During the conversation, Mr. Gardner informed Vavid that he
currently covers Arizona for plaintiff. Vavid began trying to persuade Mr. Gardner to
apply for an opening with B&L in Arizona. In such a position, Mr. Gardner would be
calling on the same customers for B&L that he currently calls on behalf of plaintiff. Mr.
Gardner informed Vavid that he was not interested.
51. Also, Mr. Gardner asked Vavid how he got his contact information.
Vavid responded that B&L “had their sources” but did not say more. In the course of the
conversation, however, Vavid told Mr. Gardner that B&L had hired other J&J people
including “top executives” and suggested that he look on the B&L website to confirm.
Solicitation of Kevin Ledwith
52. Mr. Ledwith is a District Manager for plaintiff for the Northeast Region.
He supervises nine sales representatives in connection with their promotion of plaintiff’s
pharmaceutical products to doctors and retail outlets, such as pharmacies, prescribing or
selling plaintiff’s products for ophthalmic care.
53. On or about January 14, 2009, Mr. Ledwith received an email contact
from Michael Vargas who identified himself as a recruiter for B&L and sought to recruit
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 18 of 23
- 19 -
him as a team leader for B&L in connection with the expansion by B&L into the
ophthalmic pharmaceutical space.
54. Mr. Ledwith also received telephone messages on his cellular phone.
Neither his cellular phone number nor his company email address are published or
publicly available.
FIRST COUNT (Intentional Interference with a Contractual Relationship)
55. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs and
incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.
56. B&L is aware that the Sales Representatives have entered into
employment agreements with plaintiff. Those agreements, among other things, prohibit
employees from selling or working on competing products, or soliciting plaintiff’s
customers for 18 months after termination of the employment relationship, and are
specifically enforceable under Fla. Stat. § 542.33 and irreparable harm will be presumed.
57. B&L is also aware that the Sales Representatives possess highly
Confidential Information that belongs to plaintiff. B&L is aware that hiring the Sales
Representatives to call on plaintiff’s customers for B&L would constitute a breach of
their respective Agreements and common law duties to plaintiff.
58. Despite that knowledge, B&L is encouraging and tortiously inducing the
Sales Representatives to breach both their Agreements and their common law duties to
plaintiff and, therefore, are tortiously and maliciously and without privilege interfering
with plaintiff’s contractual relationship with the Sales Representatives and with their
common law duties of loyalty.
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 19 of 23
- 20 -
59. As a result of B&L’s actions, unless this interference is enjoined, plaintiff
will suffer immediate, severe and irreparable harm to its business, and other damages and
injuries.
SECOND COUNT (Interference with Beneficial Relationship)
60. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs and
incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.
61. By using Confidential Information to contact and solicit plaintiff’s sales
representatives, including those identified above, B&L is engaging in raiding, unfair
competition and is tortiously interfering with the contractual relationships and
prospective economic advantageous relationships plaintiff has both with its sales
employees and with its customers.
62. The acts of B&L constitute raiding and wrongful and malicious conduct
undertaken without legal justification and with the knowledge and intent that its actions
will cause substantial damage and injury to plaintiff.
63. Unless B&L is immediately enjoined and restrained, plaintiff will suffer
immediate and irreparable injury for which it has no adequate remedy at law or in money
damages, and other damages and injuries.
THIRD COUNT (Violation of The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act)
64. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs and
incorporates them for reference in this count.
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 20 of 23
- 21 -
65. B&L’s use, or attempted use, of plaintiff’s internal Confidential
Information, including plaintiff’s internal roster, to its improper advantage in launching a
product competitive with plaintiff’s is an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation
of Fla. Stat. § 501.204.
66. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that B&L’s acts or practices
violate the Unfair Trade Practices Act and an injunction against B&L’s continuing and
threatened violation pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.211.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant:
A. Permanently enjoining and restraining B&L and its officers, agents and
employees from causing or permitting any employees of plaintiff to hold
any employment position or engage in any employment activity with
B&L, directly or indirectly, that in any way relates to or involves
Optura®, or any other position that would place them in a position of
using or disclosing plaintiff’s Confidential Information, in violation of any
non-compete agreements those employees have executed with plaintiff;
B. Permanently enjoining B&L from soliciting or hiring any employee of
plaintiff for a period of 12 months from the date hereof;
C. Ordering B&L to turn over and return to plaintiff any of plaintiff’s
documents and or information regarding plaintiff’s business that any
former employee of plaintiff or any other J&J company, that is now
employed by B&L, has removed, copied, taken, used, disseminated, or
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 21 of 23
- 22 -
otherwise have in their possession, custody or control, including, but not
limited to, any contact lists;
D. Permanently enjoining and restraining B&L from otherwise causing or
permitting any employee of plaintiff to violate any terms of their non-
complete agreements or common law obligations to plaintiff;
E. Awarding compensatory damages to plaintiff;
F. Awarding punitive damage to plaintiff;
G. Awarding costs of this action and attorneys’ fees to plaintiff;
H. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
equitable.
Respectfully submitted, HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP Counsel for Vistakon, Pharmaceuticals, LLC 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: 305.810.2517 Facsimile: 305.810.1605 By: _/s/ Terence G. Connor___________ Terence G. Connor Trial Counsel Florida Bar No. 291153 tconnor@hunton.com
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 22 of 23
- 23 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of this Complaint has been served on Robert Bailey, Vice
President and General Counsel for Bausch & Lomb, One Bausch & Lomb Place,
Rochester, NY 14604 by Federal Express this 5th day of March.
/s/ Terence G. Connor For Hunton & Williams LLP
62376.000043 EMF_US 26936294v1
Case 3:09-cv-00176-TJC-MCR Document 4 Filed 03/05/2009 Page 23 of 23