1

2

3

4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

5 FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

6 NIKE, INC. , an Oregon corporation,

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Plaintiff,

vs.

DENIS DEKOVIC, an individual ; MARC DOLCE, an individual; and MARK MINER, an individual,

Defendants.

I, Mark Miner, declare:

No. 14CV18876

DECLARATION OF MARK MINER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

1. I became employed by Nike, Inc. in March 2008 as a footwear designer. I

14 did not enter into a noncompetition agreement on or before starting work.

15 2. In 2011 , I signed a noncompete agreement with Nike. At the time, I was

16 moved from the women' s training shoe department to the running shoe department. I

17 was given a pay raise and my title was changed from "designer" to "senior designer."

18 Although I was expected to increase the number of shoes I designed as a senior designer,

19 I did not otherwise get additional or different responsibilities, such as supervising others

20 or running a department or division. Nor did I get access to more confidential

21 information. I was simply working more hours in a different department. I do not

22 believe that the noncompete agreement is enforceable because my job change did not

23 constitute bona fide advancement as required by ORS 653 .295. My job content and

24 responsibilities did not materially increase, my status as an employee did not improve,

25 and I did not get closer to confidential company information. See, Nike, Inc. v.

26 McCarthy, 379 F3d 576 (9th Cir. 2004).

Page 1- DECLARATION OF MARK MINER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER

1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730

(503) 295-3085

1 3. Notwithstanding the fact that my noncompete agreement is not enforceable,

2 I have been abiding by it. When I decided to leave Nike, I accepted a job with adidas that

3 will not begin until after the period of my Nike noncompete agreement ends. Nike now

4 seems to contend that the noncompete agreement handcuffed me from even beginning a

5 job search until after the noncompete term ends. They claim that merely talking to a

6 competitor about a future job amounts to being "connected" with a competitor. I do not

7 agree with that interpretation, and it simply makes no sense. Otherwise, employees

8 abiding by the noncompete agreement would spend their entire noncompete term not

9 knowing when they will have their next job or where they will work.

10 4. I, along with Denis Dekovic and Marc Dolce, met with representatives of

11 adidas prior to leaving Nike. During our meetings, and in our communications with

12 adidas, we were not asked to and we did not share any Nike secrets or confidential

13 information. In Nike's court filings, it compares the "Nike Kitchen" with adidas'

14 "Brooklyn Design Studio" concept. The concept is fundamentally different than the Nike

15 Kitchen. I do not intend to play any role in the Brooklyn Design Studio during the period

16 of my noncompete, and I am not aware of any advancement of the concept beyond a

17 conceptual description of what the scope of my job at adidas could be once I begin

18 working there. I am not doing any work for adidas now, and do not intend to during the

19 period of my noncompete.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

5. When I left Nike, I removed all of my personal information from my

electronic devices before turning them in to Nike. I took nothing, and to the best of my

knowledge I retained nothing other than copies of some historical portfolio examples

regarding products I designed that were in the public domain. I have given adidas

nothing other than my commitment to start working when my noncompete agreement

expires.

2- DECLARATION OF MARK MINER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

MARKOWITZ H ERBOLD PC SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER

1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730

(503) 295-3085

1 6. The athletic footwear industry is fast moving and rapidly changing. Things I

2 knew about Nike' s product development and design may already be stale, and will

3 certainly be ancient history when I begin working at adidas. Besides, as a creative

4 person, I thrive on innovation and freshness. If I thought adidas wanted to hire me to

5 implement Nike's ideas, I would never have accepted the job.

6 7. I am not presently working in the athletic apparel or footwear design

7 industry. So even if I had any Nike information, it is of no use to me. I have not agreed

8 to, and I do not intend to, provide any confidential Nike information to adidas. adidas

9 has never asked me for any such information.

10 8. I have not directly or indirectly solicited or diverted any Nike employees. I

11 have no authority to offer employment, and adidas has told us not to talk to Nike

12 employees about adidas opportunities (or lack thereof). The announcement we issued on

13 social media when we resigned was merely a general message to friends and supporters.

14 It was not targeted to Nike employees.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page

9. Almost all of the allegations that Nike has made against me are either false

or are misleading half-truths, but because I only learned of this lawsuit yesterday, I have

not yet had the opportunity to respond to every paragraph.

I hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and

belief, and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in court and is subject to

penalty for perjury.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2014.!VW1

'~'a~r'k'~~in_e_r ______________________ ___

3- DECLARATION OF MARK MINER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER

1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730

(503) 295-3085

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ATTORNEY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 9, 2014, I have made service of the foregoing DECLARATION OF MARK MINER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE on the party/ies listed below in the manner indicated: Amy Joseph Pedersen, OSB No. 853958 Laura E. Rosenbaum, OSB No. 110061 Ryan S. Gibson, OSB No. 073873 Stoel Rives LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204

U.S. Mail (Laura E. Rosenbaum and Ryan Gibson)

Facsimile Hand Delivery (Amy Joseph Pedersen) Overnight Courier Email (Laura E. Rosenbaum

and Ryan Gibson)

Jeffrey H. Reeves (Pro Hac Vice pending) Jeffrey T. Thomas (Pro Hac Vice pending) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Attorneys for Plaintiff

U.S. Mail (Jeffrey T. Thomas) Facsimile Hand Delivery (Jeffrey H. Reeves) Overnight Courier Email (Jeffrey T. Thomas)

DATED this 9th day of December, 2014. /s/ Matthew A. Levin Matthew A. Levin OSB #003054 Attorney for Defendants NEWMAL2\422635

Print this page

Case # 14CV18876 - Nike, IncvsDennis Dekovic, Marc Dolce,Mark Miner

Case Information

Location Multnomah Civil

Date Filed 12/09/2014 05:12:08 PM

Case Number 14CV18876

Case Description Nike, IncvsDennis Dekovic, Marc Dolce, Mark Miner

Assigned to Judge

Attorney Matthew Levin

Firm Name Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, PC

Filed By Matthew Levin

Fees

Convenience Fee $0.00

Total Court Case Fees $0.00

Total Court Filing Fees $0.00

Total Court Service Fees $0.00

Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00

Total Service Tax Fees $0.00

Total Provider Service Fees $0.00

Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00

Grand Total $0.00

Payment

Account Name Cynda Herbold

Transaction Amount $0.00

Transaction Response

Transaction ID 82201

Order # 000057372-0

Declaration - DD

Filing Type EFile

Filing Code Declaration - DD

Filing Description

Reference Number

DECLARATION OF MARK MINER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW

Comments CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOTISSUE

Courtesy Copies michellerobles@markowitzherbold.com

Status Submitting

Fees

Court Fee $0.00

Service Fee $0.00

Documents

Lead Document Miner Declaration.pdf [Original]