When Restrictive Covenants Meet Reality: A Maryland Trade Secrets Case Study (Part I)

Employers often view restrictive covenants like insurance—a protective measure you hope never to need, but that helps you sleep at night. Their real value, though, is measured not when they are signed, but when they are tested in practice. That test typically arises when a key employee departs for a competitor and the employer has to take swift action to enforce the agreement in court. In this setting, restrictive covenants are no longer abstract deterrents; they must function as enforceable tools that hold up under judicial scrutiny.

The dispute in TK Elevator Corporation v. Drzewiecki, et al.,[1] provides a useful case study in how restrictive covenant and trade secret claims are litigated in practice and how they evolve over the life of a case. Understanding how these agreements function in reality—and how courts evaluate them at different stages of litigation—can play a critical role in shaping an employer’s strategy from the outset.

Background of TK Elevator Corp. v. Drzewiecki

TK Elevator (“TKE”), an elevator and escalator services company, alleged that Nichole Drzewiecki, a Sales Representative in the College Park, Maryland office, downloaded confidential business information and provided it to her new employer, Nouveau Elevator, a competitor.

At TKE, Drzewiecki had access to proprietary information (including customer, pricing, contract, and sales data) and signed a Restrictive Covenant Agreement requiring confidentiality and prohibiting solicitation of TKE’s customers with whom she worked for two years after her employment ended.

After Drzewiecki resigned in January 2024 and joined Nouveua, TKE alleged that a forensic review found that she had downloaded several TKE files to personal drives before leaving. TKE also alleged that customers identified in those files moved their business to Nouveau. TKE sent demand letters seeking return of the information, but received no response.

Lawsuit and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

On March 6, 2025, TKE filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging breach of contract, tortious interference, and trade secret violations under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“MUTSA”), and moved for a TRO/preliminary injunction. After briefing and a hearing, the court issued a decision on March 11, 2025, granting relief in part.

Because injunctive relief is considered “extraordinary,” TKE had to show it was likely to succeed on the merits, irreparable harm, and that a balance of the equities and public interest both favored granting the injunction. The court found TKE likely to succeed on its contract claim and likely to suffer irreparable harm from losing customers and ordered Drzewiecki to return the information.

The court relied on the agreement’s confidentiality provision and 2-year customer non-solicitation restriction, finding them reasonable and tied to TKE’s legitimate interest in protecting customer information and relationships, and the fact that a customer identified in the files moved its business to Nouveau. The court also found irreparable harm despite TKE’s 78-day delay before filing suit, emphasizing the loss of an existing customer and ongoing risk while Drzewiecki retained the information.

The trade secret claims, however, fell short at this stage, as TKE did not describe the allegedly misappropriated information with enough specificity for the court to determine whether it qualified as a trade secret under federal and Maryland law.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

1. Well-Drafted Restrictive Covenants Are Critical. The court granted the injunction based on the clear and well-drafted language of the confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions. Even when the trade secret claims were not enough to warrant injunctive relief, the contract claims carried the day.
2. Customer Loss Can Show Irreparable Harm. The court was persuaded not simply by the misappropriation of information, but by the loss of customers. That connection was critical to showing likelihood of success and irreparable harm.
3. Swift Action Remains Imortant, But Delay May Not Be Fatal. Although TKE waited 78 days before filing suit, the court still granted the injunction. Prompt action remains the best course of action, but courts may still grant relief if there is delay, especially if there is real harm and the company took some immediate steps to address the problem, such as sending a demand letter.
4. Trade Secret Claims Require Specificity at the Injunction Stage. TKE’s trade secret claims fell short because they lacked sufficient detail. Identifying specific documents, what information they contain, why they are secret, and how they derive value from being secret will be critical to making this showing.
5. Early Litigation Is About Speed and Focused Proof. Notice that all the litigation discussed above—filing suit, the motion for TRO/injunction, briefing, a hearing and the decision—took place within 5 days. At the TRO/preliminary injunction stage, the parties must provide targeted, credible evidence to support their claims, without the benefit of time or full discovery. Employers can plan ahead for enforcement by having clear, well-drafted agreements, sensible procedures tailored to their goals and interests, and the ability to conduct swift factual investigations.

In Part II, I will examine the court’s February 27, 2026 decision and what changed as the case moved into the next phase. This will offer a fuller picture of how these claims hold up over time and provide further insight to employers looking to protect their interests. Stay tuned!

The attorneys at Luchansky Law are experienced in drafting and enforcing restrictive covenants to protect your business interests while minimizing legal and competitive risk. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you how to protect your business. For more information, call me at Luchansky Law 410.522.1020, or email me at ari@luchanskylaw.com.