Counsel for Richard Campfield and his company, Ultra Bond Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim that Safelite filed against him last month in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Ohio.
Campfield’s original 2015 suit alleged that Safelite’s advertising was misleading and that a large portion, if not most, of the market for his products was eliminated due to Safelite’s policy against repairing cracks longer than a dollar bill. In its September 2018 counterclaim, Safelite accused Campfield of “unlawful acts, including tortious interference with contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, civil conspiracy, conversion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and unfair competition.”
In his motion to dismiss the counterclaim, Campfield’s counsel argues that the counterclaim “is a transparent attempt to shift attention away from Safelite’s misconduct and to bombard and intimidate plaintiffs, who are substantially smaller competitors, with baseless claims of misconduct.”
In response to Safelite’s request to seal it counterclaim for confidentiality sake, Campfield’s counsel argues that many of the documents, including its employee handbook are available publicly in other places.
“Though Safelite undoubtedly insisted on sealing this document in this action to bolster its contention that all internal Safelite employee documents are confidential, Safelite publicly filed that same Group Handbook last year in a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland,” writes Campfield’s counsel in the motion. “Numerous other examples of the categories of documents that Safelite speciously claims are confidential and/or trade secrets are, in fact, publicly filed in other cases and/or are widely available on the Internet.”
At press time, the court had not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.