2026 IL App (1st) 252077-U
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
FIRST DIVISION February 9, 2026 No. 1-25-2077 ______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
WILLOW INSURANCE GROUP, INC., ) ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellants, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County v. ) ) No. 25 CH 2397 PAVLO BONDARENKO a/k/a Paul Bondarenko, ) GALINA BARASH, STEVEN MIKUZIS, and POWER ) The Honorable RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, an Illinois ) William B. Sullivan, Limited Liability Company d/b/a Power Risk Insurance, ) Judge Presiding. ) Defendants-Appellees. )
PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Howse and Cobbs concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The trial court’s order denying the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiff is affirmed.
¶2 The plaintiff, Willow Insurance Group, Inc. (Willow), appeals following the trial court’s
denial of a preliminary injunction sought by it to prevent two departed employees, defendants
Pavlo Bondarenko and Galina Barash, from using certain customer lists and information that it
claimed were trade secrets in their work as insurance agents on behalf of their new employers, No. 1-25-2077
defendants Power Risk Management Services, LLC (Power), and Steven Mikuzis. We affirm the
trial court’s denial of the preliminary injunction.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 This is the second time that this case has come before this court. By a prior summary order,
this court affirmed the trial court’s entry of a temporary restraining order (TRO) concerning the
same alleged trade secrets that are the subject of the instant motion for preliminary injunction. The
TRO was entered based upon Willow’s verified complaint, which alleged that the defendants had
misappropriated trade secrets in violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (765 ILCS 1065/1
et seq. (West 2024)) after Willow terminated Barash’s employment on August 15, 2024, and
Bondarenko voluntarily left his employment there on November 22, 2024. Both were hired by
Mikuzis to work at Power as insurance agents after they left Willow.
¶5 Willow’s verified complaint alleged that after it terminated Barash, she disobeyed Willow’s
instructions to return client files and information belonging to Willow that she had taken home
prior to her termination. It also alleged that following her termination, Willow had created a
document titled “Galina’s Clients” that contained contact information—names, phone numbers,
addresses, and e-mail addresses—for Willow’s clients. The verified complaint alleged that access
to this client list was restricted to Willow’s president (Rebecca Barens) and three employees. One
of the employees with whom that client list was shared was Bondarenko. The reason it was shared
with him was because, following Barash’s termination, he was given the responsibility of retaining
Barash’s clients as customers of Willow. His access to the list was through a computer provided
to him by Willow. However, on two instances during the week before Bondarenko gave his two-
weeks’ notice that he was leaving Willow, he downloaded the client list and either saved it
externally or printed it. After he left his employment, Willow discovered that he had used the client
-2- No. 1-25-2077
list to help transfer Willow’s clients to Barash at Power. This included initiating calls to clients
who had not asked to change insurance agents and soliciting them to do so.
¶6 Willow’s verified complaint alleged that all four defendants had acted in concert to induce
over 100 of Willow’s customers, with more than 150 insurance policies, to transfer their business
from Willow to Power. The value of this book of business is approximately $421,000. Willow
alleged that this result could not have been achieved without the defendants’ misappropriation of
Willow’s client list and other information kept by Barash, which constituted trade secrets.
Willow’s verified complaint sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief to require the return
of its files, information, and client list and to prevent further use of that information by the
defendants. It also sought a money judgment for violation of the Trade Secrets Act.
¶7 As stated, the trial court granted a TRO in favor of Willow, finding that its verified complaint
raised a fair question as to its client list constituting a trade secret. In doing so, it acknowledged
that although the parties had opposing viewpoints about the source of the contact information that
Barash had used to contact clients after she went to work at Power, the defendants had not raised
these facts in either a verified pleading or signed affidavit. This court held by summary order that
the trial court’s assessment was not unreasonable and that therefore its granting of the TRO was
not an abuse of discretion.
¶8 The case thereafter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing on Willow’s right to a preliminary
injunction. This evidentiary hearing occurred over the course of three days and involved the
testimony by Barash, Bondarenko, Mikuzis, and Barens.
¶9 On adverse examination, Barash testified that she had been working in the insurance industry
for 28 years, first as a customer service representative and later (since 2012) as an agent. Over
those years, she built a clientele of individuals who primarily spoke Russian, Ukrainian, Polish,
-3- No. 1-25-2077
and Bulgarian through her involvement with churches, real estate agents, and banks that served
those groups. Because of those relationships, many of her customers have followed her for their
insurance needs regardless of the agency by which she was employed. Throughout that time, she
has kept a handwritten record of her clients’ names and phone numbers in a black three-ring binder.
Sometimes she also records their e-mail addresses, notes about them, and their policy numbers and
effective dates, but not mailing addresses. She refers to this binder as her “black book.” She keeps
the book at her home and has never taken it to her office. She did not need it at the office because
she had all her clients’ contact information in the paper files kept there. However, she sometimes
works and needs to reach clients on Saturdays and Sundays. She also worked from home on
Wednesdays and Fridays. Her job as an agent involves keeping track of clients’ policy renewal
dates and calling them if, for example, they fail to make a payment or have a mortgage change.
¶ 10 Barash testified that Willow became her employer on April 1, 2023, when it purchased First
Midwest Insurance Agency (First Midwest), which had been her employer since 2015. Her last
day of employment with Willow was August 15, 2024. She testified that both First Midwest and
Willow used a computer program called EZLynx for purpose of obtaining quotes and servicing
policies. To obtain quotes for coverage in EZLynx, she would input the insured’s name, date of
birth, driver’s license, e-mail address, and phone numbers. She was able to access EZLynx from
her home computer as well as in the office. She did not need a password to use EZLynx.
¶ 11 After Willow terminated Barash’s employment, one of her account representatives
recommended that she reach out to Mikuzis about employment at Power. On August 19, 2024, she
e-mailed Mikuzis and told him, “I have my own book of business that I really want to put in good
hands.” She was referring there to the Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish-speaking clients with whom
she had maintained relationships over many years. When she met with Mikuzis, she took her black
-4- No. 1-25-2077
book to the interview to show the extent of her client list, but it was not opened. She started
employment with Power in mid-September 2024. However, clients had been calling her cell phone
since the time she was fired from Willow. Thus, once she knew she was going to be working for
Power, she began having clients compete agent-of-record and broker-of-record change forms, the
earliest being September 3, 2024. She obtained clients’ mailing addresses for use on these forms
simply by asking the clients, since she did not keep mailing addresses in her black book. Barash
testified that in addition to her black book, she possessed eight years’ worth of lists of First
Midwest’s customers that its previous owner, Robert Smith, had given to her for the purpose of
establishing her annual salary. She had similar client lists going back to 2013 from her employer
prior to First Midwest.
¶ 12 On examination by her own counsel, Barash explained that she immigrated to the Chicago
area from Ukraine when she was 35 years old. She was now age 63. When she began working for
First Midwest in 2015, she brought her Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish-speaking clients with her;
she never had any sort of restrictive covenant while working at First Midwest because nobody else
working there spoke the languages to serve that client base. Her black book was introduced into
evidence, and she testified that she had been using it to service her clients for many years.
¶ 13 She testified that when First Midwest was sold to Willow on April 1, 2023, she had no idea
that this was going to occur and had no part in the negotiations. At that time, nobody said anything
to her about returning any records. Nobody from Willow asked her anything about how she kept
records of her clients. She never signed any restrictive covenant, noncompete agreement, or
nonsolicitation agreement with Willow at any time. She testified that on August 15, 2024, Barens
met with her via Zoom to terminate her as an employee of Willow; however, in that same
conversation, Barens offered her $25,000 to buy her book of business and have her sign a
-5- No. 1-25-2077
nonsolicitation agreement. Barash did not agree or sign the proposed agreement. She returned her
office keys the following Monday morning, and nobody asked her at that time about returning her
black book or any documents she had received in prior years from Robert Smith of First Midwest.
¶ 14 Barash explained that she first met Bondarenko around May or June 2024 because she needed
assistance serving her clients, and he spoke Ukrainian, Russian, and English. She also believed he
would be capable of the job because he had been a practicing lawyer for 17 years in Kiev, Ukraine,
before he left due to the war there. She thus helped him get a job at Willow as a customer service
representative. She eventually made his introduction to Mikuzis to help him get a job at Power
also. After she left Willow, she never asked Bondarenko to bring her any documents, information,
or information from Willow. She testified that sometime in November 2024, after Bondarenko
came to work at Power, he gave her a paper that was a list of her clients from Willow. She testified
that she never used that document because she already had all the contact information for her
clients in her black book.
¶ 15 On recross, Barash agreed that she had written some entries into her black book during the
time that she was employed by Willow.
¶ 16 Bondarenko was the second witness, and he testified on adverse examination that he began
employment with Willow on July 15, 2024. He had been introduced to Barash earlier that month
by some Ukrainian-speaking friends, and he had applied for a job as a customer service
representative at Willow after Barash told him she was looking for someone to assist her. He was
never given any employment manual when he started working for Willow. He was given a laptop
computer with access to a program called EZLinks. On August 7, 2024, Barens sent him an e-mail
attaching a nondisclosure form. That e-mail stated, “The non-disclosure doesn’t restrict you to
working for us, you just can’t steal our customers.” He was also given a personnel agreement;
-6- No. 1-25-2077
although he did not return a signed copy of it to Willow, he acknowledged this was unintentional.
When he started working for Willow, the plan was that he would take the necessary courses to
obtain licensure as an agent. He completed the courses two days before Barash was fired.
¶ 17 After Barash was fired from Willow, Bondarenko’s employment there became very stressful.
Another employee had left the following week, leaving only Bondarenko and another Ukrainian
named Lana, who worked only a few days a week until she quit soon thereafter. Thus, Bondarenko
was new to the United States, new to the insurance industry, and essentially doing by himself a job
that had previously been done by three people. He testified that Barash’s clients would call Willow
asking questions that he was unable to answer or raising time-sensitive insurance needs such as
real estate closings. Barash also called him a few times and asked him to take actions to service
policies, but he did not think it was appropriate to take direction from her once she was no longer
working for Willow. He stopped taking phone calls from her and only spoke to her a couple of
times after she left Willow. He did not give Barash’s phone number to clients who called Willow
looking for her. Barens told him to do his best to be helpful to Barash’s former clients so that they
stayed with Willow.
¶ 18 Around Labor Day of 2024, Barash introduced Bondarenko to Mikuzis, who is a lawyer in
addition to running an insurance agency. Bondarenko told Mikuzis that he was not happy in his
job at Willow, and Mikuzis responded that Power could consider employing him after he obtained
his agent license. He testified that although Willow paid for his two-day class, Bondarenko paid
for his own agent exam and license. On October 14, 2024, he informed Mikuzis that he had
obtained his license.
¶ 19 On November 8, 2024, Bondarenko provided his two-weeks’ notice to Barens, although he
did not tell her he was going to work for Power. On two occasions the week prior to doing this, he
-7- No. 1-25-2077
printed a spreadsheet from Willow’s computer system titled “Galina’s Clients.” He testified that
he did this because he used it in his work for Willow and continued to do so until his last day
working there. When he left Willow on the last day, he took that spreadsheet with him. He did not
have a specific purpose for keeping it and did not think he was doing anything wrong or illegal by
keeping it. He gave the spreadsheet to Barash on his second or third day of working for Power.
¶ 20 On examination by his own counsel, Bondarenko testified that during the brief time he
worked with Barash at Willow, she had told him that Willow’s Ukrainian-speaking clients were
her clients; however, he did not know whether she was just saying this, and he had no particular
reason to help her after she was fired. He testified that on November 1, 2024, Barens had sent him
a Slack message suggesting he call the people whom Willow considered Barash’s clients to help
retain them as customers of Willow. He received access to the “Galina’s Clients” spreadsheet for
that purpose. He testified that through his last day working for Willow, Barash never asked him to
give her any data or documents from Willow. Likewise, neither Mikuzis nor anyone else from
Power asked him to bring them any data or information from Willow. He did not take any
electronic files from Willow when he left. He was not given instructions by anyone at Willow as
to what he should do on his last day; Barens did not come into the office that day or otherwise
contact him. The list of Barash’s clients that he kept after leaving Willow was an eight or nine-
page document from Google Sheets with names, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and residence
addresses of certain clients. He does not know what Barash did with it after he gave it to her.
¶ 21 Mikuzis was the third witness. He testified on adverse examination that he is an Illinois
licensed attorney. He also holds various licenses in the insurance industry and established Power
in 2017. He testified that he first met with Barash around August 20, 2024. She brought her black
book to that meeting to demonstrate the extent of her book of business, but it was not opened at
-8- No. 1-25-2077
the meeting. After speaking with her, he agreed that Power could hire her to help her since she had
recently been fired. He met Bondarenko also around the end of August and told him that Power
could consider hiring him if he obtained producer licenses. On September 3, 2024, Barash stated
to Mikuzis in an e-mail that it would take her a few months to get broker-of-record letters
processed; those are forms used by insurance carriers to determine which brokerage receives a
commission for an insured’s policy. Obtaining these letters is a matter of contacting the client and
getting their permission to process the change in agent or broker.
¶ 22 On October 14, 2024, he received confirmation from Bondarenko that he had passed the
property portion of the state producer licensing examination. He made an offer of employment to
Bondarenko sometime the following month. He was asked about the document titled “Galina’s
Clients” that Bondarenko had kept after leaving his employment with Willow, and Mikuzis
testified that he had never seen it prior to litigation. Asked if having such a list of clients and their
contact information would be helpful in soliciting clients to get broker-of-record letters, he
answered that it would be no more helpful than working through public records to obtain clients’
phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and mailing addresses, which were readily available to anybody
with Internet access. He testified that knowing the expiration dates for a client’s policy would be
helpful in knowing when to contact them to obtain broker-of-record letters.
¶ 23 On examination by codefendants’ counsel, Mikuzis testified that there were multiple tools
available to an agent selling personal lines insurance to obtain people’s contact information. One
paid service is called Spokeo, which provides complete home addresses, e-mail addresses, and
phone numbers. Salesgenie is a similar service. Crexi provides residence owners and complete title
search results. Lexis is used by most insurance agencies and provides a significant amount of
contact information and other information about individuals. Mikuzis also testified that the
-9- No. 1-25-2077
“Galina’s Clients” document was nothing he had ever used for the business of Power or himself.
He testified that the only information on that list was names, addresses, phone numbers, and e-
mail addresses; a list with that kind of information has no value to an agency such as Power because
the product it brokers—home and automobile insurance—is ubiquitous, such that every person
who owns or rents a home and drives a car is a potential customer for that insurance.
¶ 24 Barens was the final witness to testify at the evidentiary hearing. She testified on direct
examination that she was Willow’s founder and president. Willow purchased First Midwest in
April 2023, and the asset purchase agreement stated that Willow was purchasing its “customer and
contact lists, including names, addresses and telephone numbers” along with its business records
and files. At the time of purchase, First Midwest’s annual revenue from customers for whom
Barash was producer was $258,872, with its total annual revenue being $450,000. Although
Willow purchased First Midwest for $600,000, litigation ensued that resulted in a settlement
whereby Willow paid only $30,000 to its seller Robert Smith. However, she testified that Willow
spent a total of $279,000 associated with the acquisition of First Midwest.
¶ 25 On April 9, 2024, Barens’ husband sent an e-mail to Barash directing her to Willow’s
employee handbook, which stated inter alia that Willow’s employees “are required to protect the
confidentiality of Agency trade secrets, proprietary information, and confidential commercially-
sensitive information (i.e. *** customer lists ***) related to the Agency.” She testified that Willow
considers customers’ names, phone numbers, driver’s license information, birth dates, and policy
information to be confidential. To maintain the confidentiality of its information, Willow has a
password-protected management system, called EZLynx, where all client information is held; each
employee has their own login, which allows them to access only certain areas. None of Willow’s
employees have access to run reports or the ability to run a report of a client list. If employees need
- 10 - No. 1-25-2077
a list of their clients, they have to ask Barens. Willow also uses Google Drive and limits employee
access to files in it through password protection. Barens testified that it would be very valuable for
a competitor of Willow to obtain a list of its customers, their contact information, types of
coverage, and policy expiration dates because that information is not available anywhere.
¶ 26 Barens testified that Willow terminated Barash’s employment because it did not make
financial sense to retain her. Her August 15, 2024, e-mail to Barash instructed her by August 26,
2024, to return her office key and phone and “[t]ake any personal belongings, leaving all other
items including files, as they belong to Willow.” Willow also made her a nonsolicitation offer in
that e-mail, which she did not accept. Between Barash’s termination and May 21, 2025, Willow
received forms changing the agency of record to Power for 390 customers and 557 policies.
¶ 27 She testified that on October 31, 2024, Willow first gave Bondarenko access to a spreadsheet
including the names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of clients that Barash had previously
serviced. This spreadsheet was password protected, and he did not have access to it without Barens
giving it to him. The purpose of giving him access was so that he could contact these clients, make
sure they had Willow’s contact information, and ask if they needed anything. An exhibit was
admitted showing that Bondarenko downloaded this document two times, first on November 1,
2024, and again on November 7, 2024. The spreadsheet, which was admitted into evidence,
included clients’ names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, policy premium amount, and
notes about whether Willow had been able to reach them. On November 8, 2024, she received a
Slack message from Bondarenko stating that he was giving two weeks’ notice. He worked at
Willow until November 22, 2024. She learned in December that he was working for Power.
¶ 28 Barens also identified five additional lists of First Midwest’s clients, which she later
discovered, through discovery in the present litigation, that Barash had kept in her possession.
- 11 - No. 1-25-2077
These lists were from 2017 through 2020. They included the clients’ names and various
information about their policies in place for that year. Some of those lists also included the clients’
phone numbers and e-mail addresses. In addition to those five lists, three more lists in Barash’s
possession of clients with polices through Progressive Insurance in 2020 and 2021 were also
identified; these included clients’ names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and
other insurance information. Barens testified that she believed that these lists were Willow’s
business records that it had purchased from First Midwest in 2023 pursuant to the asset purchase
agreement. Barens testified that she had not authorized Barash to have or retain these lists.
¶ 29 Barens also testified that she first learned through discovery in this litigation that Barash had
kept the “black book” that included clients’ names and certain contact and insurance information.
Barens was not aware prior to litigation that this book existed. Barens testified that she believed
Willow was the owner of that book because it contained information acquired while Barash was
employed by Willow. She testified that 156 of the entries in the black book were made while
Barash was employed by Willow.
¶ 30 On cross-examination, Barens testified that Willow was first formed in 2016. She
acknowledged that when Willow terminated Barash on August 15, 2024, she presented a document
to Barash titled “Willow Offer for Book.” It offered $25,000 in exchange for a noncompete and
nonsolicitation agreement. Barens did not believe this was an offer for Barash’s book of business,
because Barens believed Willow had already purchased that.
¶ 31 Barens testified that she believed that any list of Willow’s clients was a trade secret. This
included the spreadsheet titled “Galina’s Clients” that Bondarenko had taken with him when he
left Willow in November 2024. Barens also claimed that all of the other eight client lists identified
from 2017 through 2021 constituted Willow’s trade secrets, even though Willow did not acquire
- 12 - No. 1-25-2077
First Midwest until 2023. Barens did not know how many of the customers identified on those
client lists remained Willow’s customers by the time it purchased First Midwest in 2023. She also
claimed that Barash’s black book was Willow’s trade secret for purposes of this litigation. Barens
testified that Barash was under no restriction about bringing the clients that she had served at
Willow with her to Power, but “[s]he wasn’t supposed to steal a client list.” She believed that
Barash’s entire black book was a stolen client list.
¶ 32 Following the evidentiary hearing, the parties submitted written closing arguments. In
Willow’s closing argument, it identified two documents as constituting protectible trade secrets as
to which it was entitled to a preliminary injunction: (1) “the three ring binder in Barash’s
possession (‘Black Book’)” and (2) “the information contained in the client list downloaded by
Bondarenko (‘Galina’s Client List’).” It did not argue in its written closing—as Barens had
testified—that any of the eight other client lists in Barash’s possession dating from 2017 through
2021 constituted Willow’s trade secrets.
¶ 33 In its written order denying the preliminary injunction and lifting the TRO, the trial court
found that Willow failed to raise a fair question that it could satisfy the necessary requirement of
showing that either the Black Book or Galina’s Client List were “sufficiently secret to derive
economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to other persons who can
obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.” See 765 ILCS 1065/2(d)(1) (West 2024). The
trial court reasoned that these two documents contained client names, e-mail addresses, mailing
addresses, and policy numbers that were not sufficiently secret to derive economic value. It found
that this information was largely either publicly available or could be purchased. It further stated
that to the extent the insurance policy information was not publicly available, it was nevertheless
information that could be accessed with a person’s name and their permission to run a search. The
- 13 - No. 1-25-2077
trial court cited the Fifth District case of Rapp Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Baldree, 231 Ill. App. 3d
1038, 1042-43 (1992), for its recognition that insurance customers readily give their information
to competing insurance companies for the purpose of obtaining better deals. The trial court found
that because Willow had not shown that it had a clearly ascertainable interest in need of protection,
it was unnecessary for it to analyze whether Willow had shown the other factors required to obtain
issuance of a preliminary injunction. Willow thereafter filed a timely notice of interlocutory
appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017).
¶ 34 ANALYSIS
¶ 35 This appeal is before us following the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. To
establish its entitlement to a preliminary injunction, Willow was required to demonstrate (1) a
clearly ascertainable right in need of protection, (2) irreparable injury in the absence of an
injunction, (3) no adequate remedy at law, and (4) a likelihood of success on the merits of the case.
Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C., 225 Ill. 2d 52, 62 (2006). On appeal, we examine whether
Willow, as the party seeking the injunction, has demonstrated a prima facie case that there is a fair
question concerning the existence of the claimed right. Id.
¶ 36 We first address our standard of review. In most cases, we apply the abuse of discretion
standard of review when evaluating a trial court’s granting or denial of a preliminary injunction.
Id. at 62-63; Liebert Corp. v. Mazur, 357 Ill. App. 3d 265, 276 (2005). In this case, however,
Willow urges us to apply a de novo standard of review on several bases. First, it contends that the
trial court’s determination that it failed to show a trade secret involved interpretation of the Trade
Secrets Act. Although we agree that de novo review can be appropriate in cases where a trial
court’s decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction involves a question of law such as the
interpretation of a statute (Caro v. Blagojevich, 385 Ill. App. 3d 704, 709 (2008)), here the trial
- 14 - No. 1-25-2077
court’s denial of the preliminary injunction did not involve statutory interpretation. Instead, the
trial court was merely applying the statutory definition of “trade secret” to the evidence adduced
at the evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, de novo review is not warranted on that basis.
¶ 37 Willow’s second grounds for urging us to review this appeal de novo is its assertion that the
facts upon which the trial court relied were undisputed, and de novo review applies where a trial
court applies the law to undisputed facts. The cases that Willow cites for this principle are not
cases involving the issuance of preliminary injunctions. More significantly, we disagree that this
case involved only undisputed facts. Rather, the dispute below turned on whether Willow had
shown a fair question about whether the customer lists or information at issue qualified as a trade
secret under the facts of this case. This was a question of fact that was highly disputed at the
evidentiary hearing. See Liebert Corp., 357 Ill. App. 3d at 277 (“Whether customer lists are trade
secrets depends on the facts of each case.”). It would not be appropriate for this court to undertake
de novo review of such a fact-dependent determination.
¶ 38 Willow’s final argument for applying de novo review is an assertion that a trial court’s finding
that a plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case invokes de novo review. For this proposition,
Willow cites Keefe-Shea Joint Venture v. City of Evanston, 332 Ill. App. 3d 163 (2002). However,
this court’s reference in Keefe-Shea that de novo review applies to a ruling on the failure to make
out a prima facie case was a reference to the first prong of the two-part analysis required on a
motion for directed finding at a bench trial under section 2-1110 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2000)). Keefe-Shea, 332 Ill. App. 3d at 167. The instant case involved
an evidentiary hearing, not a trial, and in any event the trial court ruled after hearing all the
evidence and closing argument presented by both sides. Thus, Keefe-Shea provides no support for
applying a de novo standard of review to the trial court’s ruling in this case. We hold that abuse of
- 15 - No. 1-25-2077
discretion is the appropriate standard for reviewing this appeal. See Mohanty, 225 Ill. 2d at 62-63.
¶ 39 To show a clear and ascertainable right in need of protection, the party seeking a preliminary
injunction must raise a fair question that it has a substantive interest recognized by statute or
common law. Delta Medical Systems v. Mid-America Medical Systems, Inc., 331 Ill. App. 3d 777,
788-89 (2002). Consistent with the argument made in its written closing, Willow’s argument on
appeal is that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing raised a fair question that it is
entitled to protection under the Trade Secrets Act of (1) the entirety of the “black book” maintained
by Barash and (2) the spreadsheet titled “Galina’s Clients” that Bondarenko kept after leaving
Willow. A trade secret is defined by statute as follows:
“ ‘Trade secret’ means information, including but not limited to, technical or non-
technical data, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, drawing,
process, financial data, or list of actual or potential customers or suppliers, that:
(1) is sufficiently secret to derive economic value, actual or potential, from not
being generally known to other persons who can obtain economic value from its
disclosure or use; and
(2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain
its secrecy or confidentiality.” 765 ILCS 1065/2(d) (West 2024).
¶ 40 In addition to the statute, courts considering whether a trade secret exists also look to six
common law factors: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of a plaintiff’s
business, (2) the extent to which it is known by the employees and others involved in a plaintiff’s
business, (3) the extent of measures taken by a plaintiff to guard the secrecy of the information,
(4) the value of the information to a plaintiff and its competitors, (5) the amount of effort or money
expended by a plaintiff in developing the information, and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the
- 16 - No. 1-25-2077
information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. Liebert Corp., 357 Ill. App. 3d at
277. Of these factors, the most important is whether and how an employer has acted to keep the
information secret. Brian J. Wanca, J.D., P.C. v. Oppenheim, 2023 IL App (1st) 220273, ¶ 33.
¶ 41 Specifically with respect to customer lists and information, our court has recognized that this
information “ ‘will be deemed a protectable trade secret only where the information has been
developed by the employer over a number of years at great expense and kept under tight security.’ ”
Id. ¶ 34 (quoting Office Mates 5, North Shore, Inc. v. Hazen, 234 Ill. App. 3d 557, 574 (1992)).
Customer information that is otherwise obtainable from public sources but involved laborious
accumulation, culling, or analysis of publicly available information can qualify as a trade secret.
Stenstrom Petroleum Services Group, Inc. v. Mesch, 375 Ill. App. 3d 1077, 1091 (2007). However,
customer information does not constitute a protectible trade secret where, inter alia, it has not been
treated as confidential and secret by the employer (Office Mates 5, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 574-75) or
can be readily duplicated without considerable time, effort, or expense (Stenstrom Petroleum, 375
Ill. App. 3d at 1091).
¶ 42 As stated in the background above, the trial court’s ruling in this case was that Willow failed
to raise a fair question that it could satisfy the first element of the above statutory definition of a
trade secret, i.e., that the information within Barash’s black book or the spreadsheet titled “Galina’s
Clients” was not sufficiently secret to derive economic value from not being generally known to
others. The trial court reasoned that the information in these documents—which included client
names, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, and certain insurance policy information—was not
sufficiently secret, and it was largely information that was either public or obtainable for a fee
from various data brokers used within the insurance industry.
¶ 43 Willow argues on appeal that the trial court’s reasoning is illogical. It asserts that the value
- 17 - No. 1-25-2077
stemming from the secrecy of this information is shown by the fact that others would have to pay
a fee to obtain it. It also disputes the correctness of the trial court’s statement that the personal
insurance policy information included within these documents is publicly available information.
It contends that, even if some of the information within the documents is publicly available, its
value nevertheless lies in the extensive effort undertaken to accumulate it in one place. The black
book and spreadsheet titled “Galina’s clients” comprise over 1,000 entries compiling customers’
names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, policy numbers, and policy expiration
dates. Willow asserts that Barash compiled this information over the course of 15 years while she
was an employee of Willow and its predecessor First Midwest, which devoted substantial
resources to support her while she did so. Willow contends that it would take months to recreate
these customer lists by consulting public sources or by contacting customers directly after
obtaining their contact information. Willow also contends that the value of the information is
shown by Bondarenko’s testimony that he used the “Galina’s Clients” spreadsheet in his everyday
work obligations for Willow and by Barash’s testimony that she brought her black book to her
interview at Power. Willow also asserts that the information in these documents essentially
constitutes a large portion of the assets that it paid for when it purchased First Midwest.
Accordingly, Willow contends that this evidence shows that a fair question exists that the
information in the documents was sufficiently secret to derive economic value.
¶ 44 Willow also takes issue with the trial court’s statement that the insurance policy information,
even if nonpublic, would be accessible from the customers themselves. Willow contends that it is
circular reasoning to disqualify customer lists from trade secret protection on the basis that the
information on such lists could be obtained by contacting customers and asking them; such
reasoning, it contends, could arguably apply in every case involving customer information and
- 18 - No. 1-25-2077
would thus render meaningless the protection afforded to customer lists by the Trade Secret Act.
Willow faults the trial court for relying on a Fifth District case for the proposition that insurance
customers readily give their information to competing insurance companies. See Rapp, 231 Ill.
App. 3d at 1042-43. Willow contends that this is contrary to First District precedent as set forth in
Burt Dickens & Co. v. Bodi, 144 Ill. App. 3d 875 (1986), a case that Willow argues is “on all fours
here” and mandates reversal of the trial court’s denial of the preliminary injunction.
¶ 45 Having fully considered all of Willow’s arguments on appeal, we nevertheless hold that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Willow had failed to raise a fair question
that the customer information within Barash’s black book and the spreadsheet titled “Galina’s
Clients” was sufficiently secret to derive economic value from being so. The evidence presented
at the evidentiary hearing showed that the vast majority of the information within these documents
was created prior to Willow’s purchase of First Midwest on April 1, 2023. The information was
the product of Barash keeping a handwritten list of the names and phone numbers of those clients
with whom she had developed relationships over a 28-year period through her involvement with
churches, real estate agents, and bankers who served Ukrainian, Russian, and Polish-speaking
communities in the Chicago area. Only 156 of the over 1,000 entries were added to the black book
during the 16 months that Willow was Barash’s employer.
¶ 46 In our view, the most significant factor is the lack of evidence prior to April 1, 2023, that this
was information that First Midwest ever treated as secret or confidential. To the contrary, the
evidence showed that First Midwest’s former owner, Robert Smith, freely shared lists including
customers’ names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and insurance policy
information with Barash for the purpose of enabling her to determine her annual salary. There was
no evidence presented that Smith placed any restriction on Barash’s ability to keep these lists or
- 19 - No. 1-25-2077
on how she could use the information on them. This tends to suggest that she was free to keep
these lists and use them even if she left employment with First Midwest and went to work for a
competitor agency. Eight of these lists, dating from 2017 to 2021, were admitted into evidence at
the evidentiary hearing. A cursory cross-reference of the information that is contained within these
eight lists—which Willow is not claiming are its trade secrets—show that they contain much of
the same customer information that is included in Barash’s black book and the “Galina’s Clients”
spreadsheet. This is especially true with respect to customers’ names, which are contained on every
one of the eight lists admitted into evidence. In light of the repeated instances in which First
Midwest freely shared these lists of customer names with her without any restriction, it was not an
abuse of discretion for the trial court to conclude that trade secret protection does nor inure to
Willow merely because Barash might have needed to consult public sources or a paid data broker
to obtain contact information for some of these individuals. Similarly, it was not unreasonable for
the trial court to conclude that these customers’ insurance information was not secret because it
was information that they would be likely to readily share with Barash if they believed she could
obtain a better rate for them when it came time to renew. Its citation to a Fifth District case for this
proposition is of no significance.
¶ 47 Moreover, even after Willow purchased First Midwest on April 1, 2023, no evidence was
presented that Willow made any effort to ascertain what kinds of client records or information
Barash already had in her possession as of that time or to ask for them back. Instead, Barens’
testimony suggests that she merely assumed that nothing existed in Barash’s possession outside
the EZLynx program. Absent greater evidence on this point, the court will not presume that Barash
was prohibited after this date from continuing to keep the records of the names and contact
information of the clients whose insurance needs she had long been servicing, particularly since
- 20 - No. 1-25-2077
Willow allowed her to continue to work from home multiple days a week in a job that involved
calling clients on the phone.
¶ 48 We also reject Willow’s contention that our decision in Burt Dickens is on “all fours” with
this case. Instead, we find that case illustrates a stark contrast to this one in terms of the employer’s
efforts to keep the information at issue secret and confidential. There, the defendant was a 7-year
employee of the plaintiff insurance agency who had complied a list of the plaintiff’s customers
and the expiration dates of their aviation insurance policies before leaving to form a competing
insurance agency. Burt Dickens, 144 Ill. App. 3d at 877-78. This court affirmed the trial court’s
finding that the policy expiration dates were the plaintiff’s trade secrets and its issuance of an
injunction prohibiting the defendant from soliciting the plaintiff’s accounts for one year. Id. at 877.
¶ 49 In setting forth the extent of the employer’s efforts to keep information about customers’
policy expiration dates secret and confidential, this court detailed the following:
“[T]he customer expiration lists were available only to employees whose job required
them to work with said lists. As one of four subsidiary corporations, plaintiff received
periodically from its parent company its own customer expiration list. Only information
pertaining to those accounts handled exclusively by plaintiff agency was included in the list.
With the exception of the operations manager and the supervisor of personnel service, all
employees in the agency were severely restricted from having access to the list. The
operations manager was given instructions to distribute, to the salesmen working under his
supervision, only that portion of the list containing the expiration dates of policies which that
salesman was responsible to renew. The supervisor of personnel service was required to
divide the list alphabetically prior to distributing the corresponding portions to clerical
employees in charge of inputting data regarding renewals into the computer. Moreover, none
- 21 - No. 1-25-2077
of the employees of any of the other subsidiaries had access to plaintiff’s expiration lists.
Numerous precautions were additionally taken by plaintiff to guard the confidentiality
of its customer lists. The information contained in the lists was stored in a computer and
could only be obtained by use of a secret code. The code was known to no one except the
main computer operator. As an extra safeguard, the lists were printed only one month at a
time, approximately three months in advance. Every employee was told when hired that the
expiration lists were the confidential property of plaintiff’s and that the information
contained therein could not be disclosed to any person or be removed from the office. After
discovering that defendant had copied some of the confidential information for his own use
plaintiff took further steps to guard the secrecy of its lists by stamping them with a legend
reciting their confidentiality. Finally, plaintiff instructed its own cleaning crew to remove all
computer generated records from the office’s wastebaskets and transfer them to the computer
department where they could be shredded and disposed of accordingly.” Id. at 880-81.
¶ 50 The extent of efforts by the plaintiff in Burt Dickens to keep its customers’ policy expiration
dates confidential and secret is far different than this case, where lists of customers’ names, contact
information, and insurance policy information was freely shared with Barash every year by First
Midwest with no restriction on her ability to retain or use such lists. Although Willow apparently
made some efforts after April 1, 2023, to put in place rules about the confidentiality of customer
information, it nevertheless made no effort to determine what customer information was already
in Barash’s possession and ensure that it was returned to Willow. Thus, unlike in Burt Dickens,
the evidence here simply does not support the contention that the information claimed to be
Willow’s trade secret was kept sufficiently secret to drive economic value from being so. We find
no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination in this regard or its denial of the preliminary
- 22 - No. 1-25-2077
injunction sought by Willow.
¶ 51 CONCLUSION
¶ 52 For the reasons set forth above, the order of the trial court denying the preliminary injunction
sought by Willow is affirmed.
¶ 53 Affirmed.
- 23 -