Emerson Electric Co. v. Ceasar

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25
Page: 1 of 28 PageID #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., )
Plaintiff, )
)
V. )
)
No. 4:25-CV-1312 HEA
JACOB CEASAR,
)
)
Defendant.
)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Emerson Electric Co.'s ("Emerson") Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Defendant Jacob Ceasar. (ECF No. 32). The case arises out of the alleged breach of a non-competition and non-disclosure agreement between Emerson and its former employee, Defendant Ceasar, who left Emerson to work for its competitor, Endress+Hauser. Emerson's Complaint asserts claims against Defendant Ceasar for breach of contract, violations of the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("MUTSA"), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 417.450, et seq., and common law unfair competition. Emerson moves for the entry of a preliminary injunction as to its claims for breach of contract and violations of MUTSA.
When Emerson initially filed suit against Defendant Ceasar, it moved for the entry of a temporary restraining order, which the Court granted on October 2, 2025.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO
)

2
(ECF No. 29). 	Emerson now moves for a preliminary injunction. 	The parties
conducted expedited and limited discovery, and on October 15, 2025, the Court held
an evidentiary hearing. 	After consideration of the evidence and the parties’
arguments, the Court will grant in part Emerson’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
against Defendant Ceasar.
I. 	Findings of Fact
From 2014 through July 2025, Defendant Ceasar was an employee of Micro
Motion, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Emerson. Defendant Ceasar
initially held a sales role serving as an Account Manager, and in his last three years
with the company he served as Director of North America Project Pursuit with
Emerson’s Measurement Solutions Group in Houston, Texas. Emerson is a global
technology, 	software, 	and 	engineering 	company, 	and 	its 	business 	includes
manufacturing, process and software automation, supplying and servicing products,
project management, and customer and business development across industrial
markets and global locations.
During his tenure at Emerson, Defendant Ceasar worked on the selling of
measurement instrumentation to companies in the following industries: liquified
natural 	gas 	(“LNG”), 	chemical, 	paper 	processing, 	refining, 	semiconductors,
upstream 	(i.e., 	the 	exploration, 	drilling, 	and 	extraction 	of 	oil), 	brownfield
decarbonization, metals and mining, alternative fuel, hydrogen, life sciences, and
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 2 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
renewable plastics. 	As Director of North America Project Pursuit, Defendant
Ceasar’s 	responsibilities 	included 	driving 	profitable 	growth 	for 	Measurement
Solutions and working with a team to establish pricing, quoting strategy, and the
proposal process for projects in North America; understanding and communication
the customers business strategies around projects in the LNG industry to the rest of
the organization; having contact relationships with Engineering Procurement and
Construction 	(“EPC”) 	in 	North 	America; 	contributing 	to 	and 	maintaining 	a
Measurement Solutions North America top project’s list; and working with strategic
accounts teams, field sales, and sales leadership to identify, prioritize, and position
Measurement Solutions in the project cycle. In his role as Director of North America
Project Pursuit, Defendant Ceasar had access to customer information and lists,
pricing 	information, 	technical 	and 	project 	information 	from 	customers, 	and
marketing and sales information. He also developed and maintained a top projects
list 	and 	provided 	monthly 	leadership 	updates 	within 	Emerson 	Measurement
Solutions. While he maintained the list, Defendant Ceasar did not work on all the
projects on the list, and it is unclear from the record the extent to which Defendant
Ceasar had knowledge about the projects on the list.
Quotes for projects are hundreds of pages long and may contain thousands of
different products. 	List prices for Emerson products are not confidential, but
Emerson applies discounts to its prices in project quotes. Emerson does not apply
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 3 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
uniform discounts across projects, and there is no confidential formula Emerson uses
to calculate quotes for a project or how low a discount Emerson will provide to any
given customer.
Emerson did not require Defendant Ceasar to agree to a non-competition
agreement in either of his roles with the company. 	In November 2024, Emerson
awarded Defendant Ceasar 227 Restricted Stock Units. As part of the process of
accepting the stock award, there is evidence that on December 12, 2024, Defendant
Ceasar electronically accepted the Emerson Fiscal 2025-2027 Restricted Stock
United Program Award Agreement (“RSU Agreement”) through an online portal.
The RSU Agreement contains the following language:
That during your employment by Emerson Electric Co. or any of its
divisions, subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively, “Emerson”), and for a
period of one (1) year immediately after your employment with
Emerson ends for any reason, including by reason of divestiture or spin-
off, you will not directly or indirectly, regardless of whether any
payment has been made to you under the Program, (a) compete against,
or enter the employ of or assist any person, firm, corporation or other
entity in a business that competes against any business of Emerson in
which you were at any time employed, (b) compete against any such
Emerson business by soliciting or pursuing its customers, or (c) solicit
or hire any Emerson employees. Emerson shall be entitled to all rights
and remedies available at law or equity for any breach or threatened
breach of this Agreement, including a cancellation of this Award and
any other outstanding equity awards and/or the return of all shares
(including any cash payment in lieu of shares) issued under this
Program or any prior program under the Plan, damages, and injunctive
relief.
The 	Program 	benefits 	Emerson 	employees 	who 	have 	access 	to
Emerson’s confidential and proprietary business plans and strategies
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 4 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
and 	Emerson’s 	confidential 	and 	propriety 	business 	methods 	and
customer relationships and preferences. You therefore acknowledge
that by virtue of your position and responsibilities within Emerson, you
have access to Emerson’s highly confidential business plans and
strategies, and which strategies will be implemented in the future. You
also acknowledge that by virtue of your position and responsibilities
within Emerson that you have access to Emerson’s confidential and
trade secret methods for conducting its business, as well as confidential
information 	regarding 	customers 	and 	customer 	preferences. 	You
further acknowledge that competitors of Emerson would obtain unfair
insights into Emerson’s plans, strategies, and confidential business
methods should they obtain access to Emerson’s plans, strategies,
customer relationships, preferences, and business methodologies and
that Emerson would be irreparably harmed should a competitor obtain
access to this information. You further acknowledge that Emerson is a
global company, competing with other global companies, regarding its
products and services and customer relationships and preferences. You
agree that you will not directly or indirectly for any purpose other than
performance of your duties for Emerson disclose or cause the disclosure
of 	Emerson’s 	trade 	secrets 	or 	confidential 	and 	proprietary
information[.]
(ECF No. 1, Ex. 1). Defendant Ceasar agreed to abide by these provisions when he
accepted the terms of the RSU Agreement on December 12, 2024.
In June 2025, Defendant Ceasar applied for and was offered the position of
National Business Development Manager – LNG/Marine at Endress+Hauser, which
he accepted on July 16, 2025. On July 28, 2025, Defendant Ceasar resigned from his
position with Emerson, and he notified the company that his last day would be
August 8, 2025, although he did not indicate where he would be employed following
his resignation. On July 29, 2025, Emerson sent Defendant Ceasar a letter reminding
him of his post-employment obligations to Emerson and of his non-competition
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 5 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
obligations under the RSU Agreement. 	On July 30, 2025, Emerson also emailed
Defendant Ceasar a copy of the RSU Agreement.
Sometime thereafter, Emerson learned that Defendant Ceasar was going to
work for Endress+Hauser. It is undisputed that Endress+Hauser directly competes
with Emerson. Endress+Hauser offers measurement instrumentation products that
directly compete with the products offered by Emerson’s Measurement Solutions
business unit and Micro Motion, Inc.
On August 20, 2025, Emerson sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant
Ceasar and Endress+Hauser. In response, Endress+Hauser’s attorney informed
Emerson that Defendant Ceasar had been hired for a role in the LNG industry, but
that upon learning of his post-employment obligations to Emerson, Endress+Hauser
had reassigned Defendant Ceasar to a role serving only the semiconductor and data
center industries. On August 25, 2025, Endress+Hauser provided Emerson with a
job description for Defendant Ceasar’s new role. The job description states that in
his role with Endress+Hauser, Defendant Ceasar is to “drive growth initiatives by
expanding Endress+Hauser’s presence in the semiconductors and data centers
markets. This role focuses on strengthening key customer relationships, specifically
with Meta, Prime Controls, and Micron …..” 	(ECF No. 1, Ex. 2 at 2). 	It is
undisputed that while at Emerson, Defendant Ceasar worked with Micron, and that
he worked on at least one semiconductor project.
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 6 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
At the hearing, Defendant Ceasar testified that in light of the fact that he
worked in the semiconductor industry and for Micron at Emerson, Endress+Hauser
has further limited his role. He testified that at Endress+Hauser he will be limited
to business development in the data center industry, and that he will be working
exclusively for two customers, Meta and Prime Control. There is no evidence in the
record that either Meta or Prime Control are customers of Emerson, or that Emerson
has ever bid on a Meta or Prime Control project. The parties dispute, however, the
extent to which Defendant Ceasar worked in the data center industry for Emerson,
if at all.
Defendant Ceasar testified that while at Emerson he neither worked in the
data center industry nor participated in any sales related to a data center project.
Roger Kelm, Emerson’s Vice President of North America Sales for Measurement
Solutions, 	confirmed 	that 	Defendant 	Ceasar 	had 	never 	sold 	measurement
instrumentation in the data center industry while at Emerson.
Emerson did present evidence that Defendant Ceasar was exposed to some
information about data center projects at Emerson. More specifically, in January
2025, Defendant Ceasar attended a seminar entitled “Project Pursuit Training and
Strategic Account Project Review.” (ECF No. 43 at 54). During the seminar, which
was over seven hours long, dozens of topics and projects were discussed, including
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 7 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
a data center project. 	Emerson, however, did not provide evidence of the level of
detail that was shared at this seminar regarding the data center project.
Emerson also points to the fact that on February 26, 2025, Defendant Ceasar
may have attended an internal meeting at Emerson, and the PowerPoint presentation
for this meeting, which was found in Defendant Ceasar’s work email account at
Emerson, identifies data centers as generating growth for power projects. 	Again,
Emerson provides no evidence as to the level of detail that was shared about the data
center industry, and Defendant Ceasar had no recollection of even attending the
meeting.
Emerson also produced an internal Emerson email dated July 10, 2025,
wherein Defendant Ceasar and other managers were asked to provide updates about
projects for the “funnel.” 	(Emerson Ex. 15). 	In response, Defendant Ceasar
provided updates on an LNG project. One of the other managers on the email chain
was working on data center projects. In the email, there is no specific information
about the data center projects, and Emerson does not identify what information was
shared with Defendant Ceasar about the projects outside the email, if any.
Finally, Emerson points to an email dated July 18, 2025. The email is from
Defendant Ceasar’s co-worker, and he provides information to Defendant Ceasar
that he had obtained at an IIR conference, which was open to the public. Attached
to the email is a summary of the presentation from the conference, as well as a list
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 8 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
that was shared with attendees of new and upcoming projects, some of which were
data center projects.
There is no evidence in the record that Defendant Ceasar took any of
Emerson’s property or documents with him upon his departure. And there is no
evidence that during his time at Endress+Hauser, Defendant Ceasar has called upon,
solicited, or pursued any customer that he worked with at Emerson. Emerson does
contend that there is evidence in the record that Defendant Ceasar has used
Emerson’s confidential information in his new role at Endress+Hauser. 	Emerson
points to the fact that in September 2025, Defendant Ceasar gave a presentation at
Endress+Hauser titled “Project Pursuit Best Practices.” Emerson also points to the
fact that after he accepted a position with Endress+Hauser but before he stopped
working for Emerson, Defendant Ceasar forwarded the July 18, 2025 email about
the IIR conference to his personal email account.
Endress+Hauser required Defendant Ceasar to sign a letter prohibiting him
from using or disclosing any confidential or proprietary information Defendant
Ceasar obtained during his time at Emerson. The agreement also bars Defendant
Ceasar from soliciting or providing services to any Emerson customers or projects
with 	which 	Defendant 	Ceasar 	had 	personal 	involvement 	while 	at 	Emerson.
Defendant Ceasar signed the agreement without objection, and he maintains that he
has complied with its terms.
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 9 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
II. 	Conclusions of Law
A. PRELIMINARY INJUNNCTION STANDARD
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
right.” Cigna Corp. v. Bricker, 103 F.4th 1336, 1342 (8th Cir. 2024) (quoting Winter
v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)). “Its “primary function ... is
to preserve the status quo until, upon final hearing, a court may grant full, effective
relief.’” Id. (quoting Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Food Corn, Inc., 729 F.2d 589, 593
(8th Cir. 1984)).
In determining whether to issue preliminary injunctive relief, this Court
considers the following factors: (1) the probability that the movant will succeed on
the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the balance between
this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on the nonmovant;
and (4) the public interest. Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, 721 F.3d 494, 497 (8th
Cir. 2013) (citing Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir.
1981) (en banc)). 	The inquiry is “whether the balance of equities so favors the
movant that justice requires the court to intervene to preserve the status quo until the
merits are determined.” Dataphase Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d at 113.
The likelihood of success is the most important factor. 	Roudachevski v. All-
Am. Care Centers, Inc., 648 F.3d 701, 706 (8th Cir. 2011). This factor directs courts
to ask whether the party requesting a preliminary injunction has a “fair chance of
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 10 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
prevailing.” Planned Parenthood Minnesota, N. Dakota, S. Dakota v. Rounds, 530
F.3d 724, 732 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc). However, even when a plaintiff has a strong
claim on the merits, “[f]ailure to demonstrate irreparable harm is a sufficient ground
to deny a preliminary injunction.” Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Tr. v. Cori, 924 F.3d
1004, 1009 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoted case omitted). “Irreparable harm occurs when a
party has no adequate remedy at law, typically because its injuries cannot be fully
compensated through an award of damages.” Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s,
LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009). 	The moving party bears the burden to
establish the need for injunctive relief. 	Chlorine Inst., Inc. v. Soo Line R.R., 792
F.3d 903, 914 (8th Cir. 2015).
B. DISCUSSION
1. Likelihood of success on the merits
A movant shows a likelihood of success on the merits when it demonstrates a
“fair chance,” not necessarily “greater than fifty percent,” that it will ultimately
prevail under applicable law. Cigna Corporation, 103 F.4th at 1343 (quoting
Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, 690 (8th Cir. 2003)). Upon
review of the record, the Court is satisfied at this stage that Emerson has presented
enough evidence to show it is likely to succeed on the merits with respect to its claim
for breach of contract, but it has not shown that it is likely to succeed on a claim
under the MUTSA.
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 11 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
a. Breach of contract
Emerson claims Defendant Ceasar has breached the RSU Agreement and will
continue to do so unless he is restrained. 	The RSU Agreement has a Missouri
choice-of-law provision. Missouri courts will enforce non-competition agreements
in limited circumstances that are “demonstratively reasonable.” Whelan Sec. Co. v.
Kennebrew, 379 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Mo. 2012). 	“A non-compete agreement is
reasonable if it is no more restrictive than is necessary to protect the legitimate
interests of the employer.” 	Id. at 842 (quoted case omitted). The agreement must
be narrowly tailored in terms of time and geography and must protect legitimate
employer interests “beyond mere competition by a former employee.” 	Id. at 841–
82. 	Under Missouri law, “a non-compete agreement is enforceable ‘only to the
extent 	that 	the 	restrictions 	protect 	the employer’s 	trade secrets 	or 	customer
contacts.’” 	Id. at 842 (quoting Healthcare Servs. of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Copeland,
198 S.W.3d 604, 610 (Mo. 2006)). “The employer has the burden to prove that the
non-compete agreement protects its legitimate interests in trade secrets or customer
contacts and that the agreement is reasonable as to time and geographic space.” Id.
The Court finds Emerson has met its burden of showing that Emerson and
Defendant Ceasar entered into an enforceable non-competition agreement for which
Defendant Ceasar received adequate consideration. The Court further finds that the
RSU Agreement is designed to protect Emerson’s customer contacts and trade
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 12 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
secrets, and that by limiting the scope of the agreement to businesses in which the
former employee was employed at Emerson, it is no more restrictive than necessary
to protect Emerson’s legitimate interests. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc. v. May Dep't
Stores Co., 157 S.W.3d 256, 260 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004); Mid-States Paint & Chem.
Co. v. Herr, 746 S.W.2d 613, 617 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). Finally, the Court finds that
the 	agreement 	is 	reasonable 	as 	to 	time 	and 	geographic 	scope. 	See 	Cigna
Corporation, 103 F.4th at 1344 (holding nationwide, two-year non-competition
agreement was reasonable); Alltype Fire Prot. Co. v. Mayfield, 88 S.W.3d 120, 123
(Mo. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a two-year limitation on employment reasonable).
There remains an issue as to the scope of the non-competition agreement.
Under its terms, the RSU Agreement precludes Defendant Ceasar from “compet[ing]
against, or enter[ing] the employ of or assist[ing] any person, firm, corporation or
other entity in a business that competes against any business of Emerson in which
[he was] at any time employed[.]” (ECF No. 1, Ex. 1 at 3). 	In its Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, Emerson made plain that it was not seeking to enjoin
Defendant Ceasar from working at Endress+Hauser entirely. 	Emerson limited its
request and asked that the Court preclude Defendant Ceasar from competing in any
business in which he worked for Emerson. 	Further, Emerson equated the term
“business” with industries, and it asserted that it was only seeking “to enjoin
[Defendant Ceasar] from engaging in activity that involves the same industries and
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 13 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
customers he serviced for Emerson.” (ECF No. 5 at 10). 	Emerson listed the
industries in which Defendant Ceasar worked for Emerson as follows: “liquified
natural gas (LNG), chemical, paper processing, refining, semiconductors and data
centers, upstream (i.e. the exploration, drilling, and extraction of oil), brownfield
decarbonization, metals and mining, alternative fuel, hydrogen, life sciences, and
renewable plastics.” (ECF No. 4 at 1-2). The Court granted Emerson’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and prohibited Defendant Ceasar from competing in
these industries.
It is now undisputed, however, that during his time at Emerson, Defendant
Ceasar did not work in or service the data center industry. In fact, Emerson admits
Defendant Ceasar has never been involved in sales for data center projects. 	(ECF
No. 43 at 156). 	But in moving for the entry of a preliminary injunction, Emerson
continues to ask for the same restraining order that the Court entered when it granted
Emerson’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order – that Defendant Ceasar be
precluded from working for Endress+Hauser in the above listed industries, including
the data center industry. Although not explicitly stated, Emerson is asking the Court
to expand the terms of the RSU Agreement.
“It is the most basic principle of contract law that parties are bound by the
terms of the contracts they sign and courts will enforce contracts according to their
plain meaning....” Lehman v. Auto. Invs., LLC, 608 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Mo. Ct. App.
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 14 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
2020) (quoted case omitted). The RSU Agreement prohibits Defendant Ceasar from
competing against Emerson “in a business that competes against any business of
Emerson in which [he was] at any time employed[.]” (ECF No. 1, Ex. 1 at 3). 	In
other words, in exchange for stock options that would vest three years in the future,
Emerson received Defendant Ceasar’s promise that he would not compete against
Emerson in a business in which he was employed at Emerson.
The record shows that Defendant Ceasar worked in many industries for
Emerson, but not in the data center industry. The Court finds that under the terms
of 	RSU 	Agreement, 	Defendant 	Ceasar 	is 	not 	precluded 	from 	working 	for
Endress+Hauser in the data center industry. 	It would be a breach of the RSU
Agreement should Defendant Ceasar engage in work at Endress+Hauser that
involves the same industries and customers that he serviced for Emerson.
b. The MUTSA
Emerson also moves that the Court enter a preliminary injunction precluding
Defendant Ceasar from working for Endress+Hauser based on its claim under the
MUTSA. To establish a violation of the MUTSA, a plaintiff must demonstrate “(1)
the existence of a protectable trade secret, (2) misappropriation of those trade secrets
by Defendants, and (3) damages.” Secure Energy, Inc. v. Coal Synthetics, LLC, 708
F. Supp. 2d 923, 926 (E.D. Mo. 2010). See also Cent. Tr. & Inv. Co. v. Signalpoint
Asset Mgmt., LLC, 422 S.W.3d 312, 320 (Mo. 2014).
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 15 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
Missouri law defines a trade secret as:
information, including but not limited to, technical or nontechnical
data, 	a 	formula, 	pattern, 	compilation, 	program, 	device, 	method,
technique, or process, that: (a) Derives independent economic value,
actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being
readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain
economic value from its disclosure or use; and (b) Is the subject of
efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its
secrecy.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.453(4)
Under the MUSTA, a misappropriation occurs: “(1) when a person acquires
the trade secret while knowing or having reason to know that he or she is doing so
by improper means, (2) when a person who has acquired or derived knowledge of
the trade secret discloses it without the owner’s consent, or (3) when a person who
has acquired or derived knowledge of the trade secret uses it without the owner’s
consent.” Central Trust and Inv. Co., 422 S.W.3d at 322.
Emerson contends Defendant Cesear has misappropriated its trade secrets. In
support of this contention, Emerson points to the presentation Defendant Ceasar
gave to Endress+Hauser employees titled “Project Pursuit Best Practices.” Emerson
claims this presentation contains its trade secrets. At the hearing, Defendant Ceasar
testified that the presentation was 30 minutes long and that it was a very general
overview of sales strategies for successful project pursuit. He further testified that
it was based on knowledge that he has gained in his 20 years in sales at Emerson and
at other companies.
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 16 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

17
The Court has reviewed the presentation materials and considered Defendant
Ceasar’s testimony, and it finds that Emerson has not shown that Defendant Ceasar
disclosed any trade secrets during this presentation. The written presentation
materials are very general and contain no specific information regarding Emerson.
Together with the written materials, the Court finds credible Defendant Ceasar’s
testimony that the presentation was a very general overview of good sales practices,
and he shared no confidential information about Emerson let alone trade secrets.
Under Missouri law, “[t]he normal skills of a trade are not included in an employer's
protectable interest. Thus, the basic skill of a craftsman will not support a restrictive
covenant.” Schmersahl, Treloar & Co., P.C. v. McHugh, 28 S.W.3d 345, 350 (Mo.
Ct. App. 2000). There is no evidence that Defendant Ceasar disclosed Emerson’s
trade secrets during this presentation.
Emerson also points to the email that Defendant Ceasar received from his co-
worker that he forwarded to his personal email account while he was still employed
at Emerson but after he had accepted a position at Endress+Hauser. 	Defendant
Ceasar testified that this email contained information that his co-worker had
obtained at an industry conference, and that the conference was open to the public.
Defendant Ceasar further testified that he forwarded the email to his personal email
account so that he could review it while he was attending his daughter’s game.
Emerson did not rebut this testimony.
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 17 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

18
The Court has reviewed the email and finds Defendant Ceasar’s testimony is
credible. Emerson has not shown that the email contained its trade secrets, let alone
that Defendant Ceasar disclosed them. 	In sum, the Court finds Emerson has not
presented 	sufficient 	evidence 	to 	show 	it 	is 	likely 	that 	Defendant 	Ceasar
misappropriated its trade secrets within the meaning of the MUTSA.
Alternatively, Emerson argues that it is inevitable that Defendant Ceasar will
misappropriate its trade secrets if he continues to work for Endress+Hauser.
“Courts refer to this future-misappropriation theory as the ‘inevitable-disclosure
doctrine’ and repeatedly emphasize that it poses a high bar.” 	Best Foot Forward
Corp. v. Basso, No. 4:23-CV-1246 HEA, 2023 WL 7128423, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Oct.
30, 2023) (quoting Prime Therapeutics LLC v. Beatty, 354 F. Supp. 3d 957, 969 (D.
Minn. 2018)). 	Neither the Eighth Circuit nor Missouri’s state courts have endorsed
the inevitable disclosure doctrine under the MUTSA. 	MiTek Inc. v. McIntosh, No.
4:23-CV-960 RLW, 2023 WL 5846714, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 11, 2023); Schenck
Process LLC v. Zeppelin Sys. USA, Inc., No. 18-00470-CV-W-ODS, 2018 WL
4279223, at *2 (W.D. Mo. June 25, 2018); Panera, LLC v. Nettles, No. 4:16-CV-
1181 JAR, 2016 WL 4124114, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2016). “[T]he issue remains
open for the Missouri courts to decide.” Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Hollywood Bed &
Spring Mfg. Co., No. 20-05010-CV-S-BP, 2020 WL 13580657, at *8 (W.D. Mo.
May 15, 2020). The Court, therefore, declines to apply the doctrine here.
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 18 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

19
But even if the doctrine of inevitable disclosure were recognized under
controlling law interpreting the MUSTA, Emerson has not demonstrated that it
would apply under the facts of this case. As discussed above, Emerson has shown
that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim. Under the
terms of the non-competition agreement, Defendant Ceasar is precluded from
engaging in work at Endress+Hauser that involves the same industries and customers
that he serviced for Emerson. Therefore, the issue before the Court is whether it is
likely that Defendant Ceasar will inevitably disclose Emerson’s trade secrets were
he to work for Endress+Hauser in industries that he did not service at Emerson, and
more specifically the data center industry. The Court finds Defendant has not made
such a showing.
In support of its argument that an injunction should continue to cover the data
center 	industry, 	Emerson 	points 	to 	the 	fact 	that 	during 	Defendant 	Ceasar’s
employment at Emerson, his role was never limited to specific industries, but rather
he worked on the pursuit of projects across industries, and the focus would shift
based on market demand. Defendant Ceasar’s focus may have shifted to align with
demands in the market, but there is no evidence that he ever did work for Emerson
on data centers. And any information that he was exposed to about Emerson’s work
in the data center industry appears to have been very general.
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 19 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

20
Emerson further argues that during his employment, Defendant Cesear was
exposed to confidential information regarding all of Emerson’s measurement
instrumentation business, which included information and strategies that would be
applicable to the data center industry. 	Roger Kelm, the Vice President of North
America Sales for Measure Solutions at Emerson and Defendant Ceasar’s former
boss, testified that Defendant Ceasar has learned “how we think about things, what
our processes are, what our strategy is for those projects.” (ECF No. 43 at 142). He
further testified, “[Defendant Ceasar] knows my discount level, he knows discount
levels of people above me or around – just below me, so you could use that
information to gauge where we are going to bid something.” Id. Finally, Emerson
argues that the measurement instrumentation products that Endress+Hauser sells to
data centers are directly competitive with products Emerson sells to data centers, and
Defendant Ceasar sold those products in other industries while he was employed at
Emerson.
Defendant Ceasar responds that the undisputed evidence shows that he did not
take any trade secrets with him when he left Emerson, and that it would be
impossible to commit to memory Emerson’s confidential business and financial
records and all the products that Emerson sells and the prices for which they are sold.
Defendant Ceasar also points to the fact that Emerson does not have a uniform
discount formula it applies to all projects, but rather each project is different, and
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 20 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

21
bids on projects are based on numerous factors, including the specifications and
scope of the project, the customer’s needs, and relationships with the customer. In
short, Defendant Ceasar argues that he lacks the ability to predict Emerson’s pricing
for data center projects, an industry in which he was not involved. The Court finds
Defendant Ceasar’s argument to be persuasive.
Defendant Ceasar also argues that there is little risk that he would share trade
secrets because he will be working for customers that he has never serviced, and in
fact, the two customers have never been customers of Emerson. The Court agrees
that there is no evidence that Emerson has ever submitted a bid for Meta or Prime
Control, the two customers to which he will be assigned at Endress+Hauser. Further,
there is evidence in the record that quotes for projects are often based, in part, on
relationship with the customer. Defendant Ceasar would have no inside information
about these two companies from his work at Emerson.
In light of the fact that Defendant Ceasar will be servicing two established
customers for Endress+Hauser in an industry in which he has never worked, and
there is no evidence that Emerson has ever bid on projects for these two customers
or that it intends to do so, Emerson has not shown that Defendant Ceasar will
inevitably use Emerson’s trade secrets at Endress+Hauser in the role he has been
assigned. Based on the record before it, the Court finds Emerson has failed to
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 21 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

22
demonstrate Defendant Ceasar misappropriated trade secrets in violation of the
MUTSA or that he is likely to do so.
The Court now turns to the remaining three Dataphase factors
2. 	Irreparable Harm
Emerson has sufficiently shown it will suffer irreparable harm if a limited
preliminary injunction is not granted. Under Missouri law, breach of a non-
competition agreement typically amounts to a per se irreparable injury. 	Osage
Glass, Inc. v. Donovan, 693 S.W.2d 71, 74–75 (Mo. 1985); see also, N.I.S. Corp. v.
Swindle, 724 F.2d 707, 710 (8th Cir. 1984); Express Scripts, Inc. v. Lavin, No. 4:17-
CV-1423 HEA, 2017 WL 2903205, at *8 (E.D. Mo. July 7, 2017) (“The mere
violation of a valid non-compete agreement can support an inference of the existence
of a threat of irreparable harm.”); H & R Block Tax Servs. LLC v. Haworth, No. 4:15-
CV-211 SRB, 2015 WL 5601940, at *4 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 22, 2015) (“Defendant is
competing against Plaintiff for its current and prospective clients. Monetary relief
will not adequately protect Plaintiff’s interest in these relationships, and it cannot
fully remedy Plaintiff’s loss of good will, confidential information, and other
legitimate business advantage.”). Moreover, under Missouri law, an employer need
only demonstrate there is a threat of irreparable harm; the employer is not required
to demonstrate actual damage has occurred. See Osage Glass, Inc., 693 S.W.2d at
75; see also Emerson Elec. Co. v. Rogers, 418 F.3d 841, 846 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 22 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

23
the threat of the sales personnel luring away [former employer]’s customers met the
irreparable harm requirement because it “would be difficult to measure the amount
of damages caused by the unfair competition and impossible to remedy fully because
the consumers 	could 	not be forced 	to purchase [the plaintiff]’s 	products.”);
Systematic Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Bratten, 162 S.W.3d 41, 51 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)
(where the restrictive covenant is valid and the former employee has an opportunity
to influence her former employer’s customers, actual damages are not necessary to
obtain 	permanent 	injunctive 	relief). 	Threatened 	disclosure 	of 	“confidential
information such as business strategy” results in irreparable harm, making a “remedy
at law …. inadequate, because [the plaintiff’s] damages would be difficult if not
impossible to measure.” Panera, LLC, 2016 WL 4124114, at *4-5. Indeed, “[c]ourts
generally hold that the disclosure of confidential information such as customer
information and business strategy will result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff.”
Experitec, Inc. v. Stachowski, No. 4:14-CV-154 AGF, 2014 WL 11089362, at *3
(E.D. Mo. Jan. 30, 2014).
The Court finds that were Defendant Ceasar to work for Endress+Hauser
servicing customers and industries that he serviced for Emerson and thereby
breaching his non-competition obligations under the RSU Agreement, it would
present a clear risk of irreparable harm to Emerson. In addition to being extremely
difficult to measure, money damages alone would be inadequate to remedy
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 23 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

24
violations of the non-competition agreement. 	The Court finds that Cigna has
established the likelihood of irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law in the
absence 	of 	an 	injunction 	precluding 	Defendant 	Ceasar 	from 	working 	at
Endress+Hauser in industries in which he worked at Emerson.
3. Balance of harms
The Court finds that the equities favor granting Emerson’s request for
injunctive relief. Defendant Ceasar possesses information that could be used for the
purpose of causing irreparable harm to Emerson in the form of lost customers and
contracts, disclosure of sensitive business information, and a diminished competitive
position in the industries in which he worked.
This threatened injury outweighs any damage Defendant Ceasar might
experience as a result of the requested preliminary injunction. 	In contrast to the
potential harm Emerson would face, Defendant Ceasar will suffer little appreciable
harm if enjoined. While Defendant Ceasar will be limited for one year in the roles
he can take at Endress+Hauser, he may continue to work in a position that does not
violate the terms of the RSU Agreement. Furthermore, Defendant Ceasar agreed to
the terms of the RSU Agreement and, thus, any damage he might incur was created
by his own action in breaching the agreement. See Emerson Elec. Co., 418 F.3d at
846 (“[Defendant] knowingly and voluntarily agreed to be restricted by the
covenant, and any perceived harm to him by the enforcement of the agreement is
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 24 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

25
outweighed by the harm foreseeable to [Plaintiff].”); H&R Block Tax Servs. LLC v.
Frias, No. 4:18-CV-53 RAK, 2018 WL 934901, at *4 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 16, 2018)
(“Having accepted significant financial and other benefits from his agreements with
H&R Block, Defendant should not now be relieved from his own obligations.”). In
sum, the Court finds that the balance of equities weighs in favor of granting Emerson
injunctive relief.
4. The public interest
Courts in Missouri have held that the enforcement of reasonable restrictive
covenants serves the public interest. See Schott v. Beussink, 950 S.W.2d 621, 625
(Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (“Missouri courts recognize that public policy approves
employment contracts containing restrictive covenants because the employer has a
proprietary right in its stock of customers and their good will, and if the covenant is
otherwise reasonable, the court will protect the asset against appropriation by an
employee.”); see also Haines v. VeriMed Healthcare Network, LLC, 613 F. Supp.
2d 1133, 1137 (E.D. Mo. 2009) (“The recognized benefits of reasonably enforced
restrictive covenants are now beyond question.”). More generally, Missouri courts
recognize the public interest in enforcing all contracts. See H&R Block Tax Servs.,
LLC v. Cardenas, No. 4:20-CV-109 SRB, 2020 WL 1031033, at *4 (W.D. Mo. Mar.
3, 2020). 	Here, entry of a preliminary injunction will promote the public interest,
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 25 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

26
including promoting freedom of contract and the enforcement of contracts between
parties.
III. 	Conclusion
Upon careful consideration of the evidentiary record in this case and applying
the 	Dataphase 	factors, the Court will grant in part Emerson’s motion for a
preliminary injunction against Defendant Ceasar based on Emerson’s claim for
breach of contract. Emerson will be precluded from working for Endress+Hauser in
activities that involve the customers and industries that he serviced for Emerson.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that consistent with the terms of this Opinion,
Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff Emerson Electric Co.’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction against Defendant Jacob Ceaser is GRANTED in part and denied in
part. (ECF No. 32). The motion is GRANTED in that during the period of one (1)
year following August 8, 2025, Jacob Ceasar is prohibited from directly or
indirectly, alone or in concert with others from:
(1) Acting, directly or indirectly – whether as an owner, employee, consultant,
independent contractor or any other role – in any capacity with a company
that directly competes with Emerson, including Endress+Hauser, by
selling or supporting the sale of measurement instrumentation in the
following 	industries: 	liquified 	natural 	gas 	(LNG), 	chemical, 	paper
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 26 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

27
processing, 	refining, 	semiconductors, 	upstream 	(i.e. 	the 	exploration,
drilling, and extraction of oil), brownfield decarbonization, metals and
mining, alternative fuel, hydrogen, life sciences, and renewable plastics;
(2) Divulging, revealing, or otherwise disclosing to Endress+Hauser or any of
its entities, or any other person or entity, Emerson’s trade secrets or
confidential information.
(3) Calling upon, soliciting, diverting, attempting to call upon, solicit, or
divert (or assist in any of the foregoing), or accept business from/do
business with any customer/potential customer of Emerson that was a
customer/potential customer Defendant Jacob Ceasar serviced during his
employment with Emerson.
In all other respects, Plaintiff Emerson Electric Co.’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars
($75,000) surety bond Plaintiff Emerson Electric Co. posted with the Clerk of Court
on October 3, 2025, shall remain as security pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c).
Dated this 20 th day of November, 2025.
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 27 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

Case: 4:25-cv-01312-HEA
Doc. #: 49 Filed: 11/20/25
Page: 28 of 28 PageID #:
28