UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

BATESVILLE CASKET COMPANY, LLC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:23-cv-01679-SEB-TAB ) RYAN ACKERMAN, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) RYAN ACKERMAN, ) ) Counter Claimant, ) ) v. ) ) BATESVILLE CASKET COMPANY, LLC., ) ) Counter Defendant. )

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AGREED INJUNCTION Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Batesville Casket Company, LLC ("Batesville Cas- ket") and Defendant/Counter-Claimant Ryan Ackerman ("Mr. Ackerman") jointly move for the entry of their Agreed Injunction and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. Dkt. 53. For the reasons explained below, the parties' motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Batesville Casket brought this action against Mr. Ackerman, its former employee, for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA"),

, et seq., and the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("IUTSA"), I.C. § 24-2-3-1, et seq., as well as for breach of contract, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Batesville Cas- ket's claims arise out of Mr. Ackerman's departure and alleged theft and misappropriation

of Batesville Casket's trade secrets and confidential information. Following a settlement conference conducted by the Magistrate Judge, the parties agreed to a proposed injunction. On August 6, 2024, we denied the parties' first joint motion for entry of their Agreed Injunction without prejudice for their failure to address or otherwise articulate any justifi- cation for the Court's exercise of equitable relief. On September 5, 2024, the parties filed a renewed motion for the entry of their Agreed Injunction.

As we summarized in our prior order, the parties' "Agreed Injunction" enjoins Mr. Ackerman from directly or indirectly soliciting business with certain Batesville Casket cus- tomers, as enumerated in a "Restricted Customers List" confidentially exchanged between the parties; contacting Batesville Casket employees "for the purpose of facilitating, assist- ing, or encouraging them to terminate their employment"; and disclosing to any third party

non-public information that he acquired in the course of his prior employment with Batesville Casket. Dkt. 53-1 at 1–2. The terms of the Agreed Injunction expire on June 30, 2025. The parties further stipulate to the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dkt. 53-2.1

1 Although dismissal with prejudice "terminat[es] federal jurisdiction," district courts retain "the inherent power" to enforce injunctions through contempt proceedings. Shapo v. Engle,

(7th Cir. 2006). II. LEGAL ANALYSIS Before approving parties' proposed consent decrees,2 courts must undertake and en-

sure that the proposed decree is "fair, adequate, reasonable, and appropriate under the par- ticular facts and that there has been valid consent by the concerned parties." Bass v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp.,

(7th Cir. 1983); see also E.E.O.C. v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc.,

, 889 (7th Cir. 1985). In so doing, the court must deter- mine that the consent decree "spring[s] from and serve[s] to resolve a dispute within the court's subject-matter jurisdiction" and "come[s] within the general scope of the case made

by the pleadings." Local No. 93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland,

(1986) (quoting Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum,

(1880)). Addition- ally, "the judge must satisfy [her]self that the decree is consistent with the Constitution and laws, does not undermine the rightful interests of third parties, and is an appropriate com- mitment of the court's limited resources." State v. City of Chicago,

, 987–88

(7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Kasper v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs of the City of Chi.,

(7th Cir. 1987)). Turning to the case at bar, we conclude that the Agreed Injunction is fair, adequate, and reasonable. All concerned parties have signed the Agreed Injunction and thus have validly consented to the terms contained therein. The Agreed Injunction also springs from

and resolves a dispute within this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction. More specifically, this lawsuit arises out of alleged violations of the DTSA and the IUTSA. This Court has federal-

2 The parties agree that their Agreed Injunction is essentially a consent decree that embodies the terms of their settlement agreement. question jurisdiction over the DTSA claim,

, and supplemental jurisdic- tion over the related state-law claims,

§ 1367. The Agreed Injunction comes within the

general scope of the case set forth in the operative complaint, as the remedies mirror the relief sought by Batesville Casket in its operative complaint. Additionally, the Agreed In- junction imposes measures—such as limiting Mr. Ackerman's ability to solicit certain cus- tomers and barring him from disclosing confidential information obtained from his prior employment with Batesville Casket—to prevent future violations of state and federal law, thus furthering those laws' objectives.

These findings also support our conclusion that the Agreed Injunction is consistent with the Constitution and laws and does not undermine the interests of any third parties. The equitable remedies provided in the Agreed Injunction pertain solely to Mr. Ackerman's conduct only insofar as such conduct implicates Batesville Casket's interests in protecting its confidential information and trade secrets. To the extent that the Agreed Injunction af-

fects the interests of Mr. Ackerman's current employer, the parties inform us that this em- ployer "was a full participate" in the settlement conference and agreed to the terms of the settlement. Dkt. 53 at 6. The Agreed Injunction also reflects an appropriate commitment of limited judicial resources, as the alternative is resumption of litigation and Batesville Casket's renewal of

its motion for a preliminary injunction. The Agreed Injunction, by contrast, resolves the parties' dispute in its entirety. The Agreed Injunction reflects the agreement of all parties, represented by counsel, and was a material component of the settlement agreement bro- kered by the Magistrate Judge. See dkt. 46. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the Agreed Injunction is APPROVED. The Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Injunction and Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice is GRANTED. Dkt. 53. Judgment consistent with this ruling shall issue separately. The Joint Motion for Extension of Time, dkt. 52, is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/2/2024 Th, Bins Biker SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: John R. Bauer Lawson & Weitzen, LLC [email protected] John A. Drake Ogletree Deakins [email protected] Anthony Simonton, Jr. Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart [email protected] Chad J. Sullivan Jackson Kelly PLLC [email protected]