Charter Calls its ex-BEAD Director's Trade Secret Claims ‘Patently False’

The U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven “correctly held” Aug. 30 that all preliminary injunction factors weigh in Charter Communications’ favor when it instructed defendant Bridger Mahlum to show cause why an emergency preliminary injunction shouldn’t be issued, said Charter’s reply brief Friday (docket 3:23-cv-01106) in support of that injunction.

Charter says it's suing to prevent Mahlum, its former director-state government affairs, from going to work for BroadbandMT and spilling Charter’s state broadband, equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program trade secrets (see 2308210001).

Mahlum’s Sept. 29 opposition and motion to dismiss Charter’s complaint (see 2310020024) fails “to make any showing” that would alter the court’s original conclusion, “much less controvert Charter’s undisputed evidence,” said Charter’s reply. Mahlum’s opposition “is based on a self-serving declaration that is riddled with demonstrable falsehoods regarding his role at Charter and Charter’s trade secrets,” it said. Mahlum’s opposition confirms that the court’s show cause order “was entirely correct,” it said.

Nothing in Mahlum’s opposition “alters the conclusion that all factors weigh decisively in Charter’s favor,” said Charter’s reply. The company is likely to prevail on the merits of both its Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) claim and its breach of contract claim, “given Mahlum is threatening misappropriation and misuse of Charter’s trade secrets,” it said. That includes his admission “that he had constant exposure to Charter’s nationwide trade secret information,” it said. This fact alone “confirms the propriety” of the court’s original show cause order, it said.

Mahlum concedes he’s inflicting Charter with irreparable harm “by admitting that he is actively lobbying for legislation designed to harm Charter’s bidding” on the $628 million in BEAD grants for the direct benefit of BroadbandMT’s members, said the reply. That’s after he gained knowledge “of Charter’s internal strategy to defend this exact legislation,” it said.

The balance of equities and public interest “weigh in favor of issuing an injunction,” said Charter’s reply. That’s supported by Mahlum’s request for “freedom-to-contract principles” to apply, plus his admission “that he has prior, transferable experience allowing him to earn a livelihood for the mere (tolled) six months he should be enjoined,” it said. Mahlum’s claim he wasn’t privy to Charter’s trade secrets “is patently false,” said the company’s reply. Mahlum “obtained extensive knowledge of Charter’s trade secrets and was exposed on a near daily basis to information and business strategy that falls squarely within the protection of CUTSA,” it said.

In addition to the trade secrets listed in Charter’s preliminary injunction motion, internal emails show Mahlum had “unfettered access to and knowledge of” the compilations of cost and project data, including Mahlum’s ranking of projects eligible for BEAD funding, said Charter’s reply. He also had access to Charter’s “methodologies, formulas, and processes, which include his knowledge of Charter’s internet infrastructure,” it said. He also had knowledge of Charter’s strategy “to defend against proposed BroadbandMT legislation that is designed to harm Charter,” it said. “Similarly false” is Mahlum’s “absurd” claim that Charter’s trade secrets don’t “create economic value,” it said.