Background
Christopher Frankel served as CEO of Alpine Securities Corporation until July two thousand eighteen. Upon leaving, he allegedly forwarded sensitive documents to his personal email and used them to negotiate with competitors. Alpine sued Frankel for breach of nondisclosure agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unjust enrichment. A jury found Frankel liable and awarded over nine hundred thousand dollars for unjust enrichment, though it found Alpine suffered no actual monetary harm. The district court denied Frankel’s motions for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law, and also denied Alpine’s request for a permanent injunction.
The court’s reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s exclusion of a defense witness for abuse of discretion, finding the trial court acted within its broad authority to manage trials when the witness was not disclosed on the pretrial list. Regarding the unjust enrichment award, the court held that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer the value of the misappropriated secrets to the defendant. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction, noting that Alpine’s delay in seeking relief undermined its claim of irreparable harm and that the jury’s finding of no actual harm meant legal remedies were adequate.
Opposing parties in our adversarial system do not always play nice—and this case is a prime example.
USCA11 Case: 23-10365 Document: 85-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 27 of 27
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the discretion of district courts in managing discovery and trial proceedings, particularly regarding witness disclosures. It clarifies that unjust enrichment damages can be awarded based on the defendant’s gains even if the plaintiff cannot prove specific monetary loss, provided there is a reasonable basis for the calculation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download